Government officials’ personal e-mails don’t have to be disclosed under Arizona’s public records law even if kept on a taxpayer-supported computer, a state court has ruled.
Previous Arizona court rulings have found that Arizona’s public records law generally requires disclosure of material that documents official activities, with exemptions for confidentiality, privacy and the best interests of the state.
The new ruling by the state Court of Appeals notes that the Arizona public records law was enacted in 1975, long before e-mail systems became prevalent in public offices. The court said e-mails are often the equivalent of telephone calls, not printed paper documents.
“Because of their transitory nature, the content of telephone calls generally would not be considered a public record,” a three-judge panel in Tucson said in a unanimous ruling Aug. 4.
“In our view, it defies logic to believe the Legislature intended to require every state officer or employee, for purposes of disclosure on a public records request, to record the content of all of his or her personal telephone calls or to create and maintain documentation of all activities, whether business-related or strictly personal, in which he or she engages on the job.
“It would be just as illogical to infer any such intent with respect to electronic forms of communication that are purely personal in nature, even though e-mails are essentially self-documenting and easily retained.”
The state supreme courts of Florida and Colorado have issued similar rulings, the Arizona court noted.
120 personal e-mails were disclosed
Its ruling came in former Pinal County Manager Stan Griffis’ appeal of a trial court judge’s ruling that 120 e-mails deemed personal should be released to Phoenix Newspapers Inc., publisher of The Arizona Republic.
Hundreds of other e-mails generated by Mr. Griffis during a two-month period requested by Phoenix Newspapers were disclosed because they dealt with official business.
The e-mails in dispute dealt with such topics as online shopping and an African vacation.
Phoenix Newspapers argued that all of the e-mails had to be disclosed to shed light on all of Mr. Griffis’ activities as a public official, but the Court of Appeals said they had no relation to his official duties and weren’t public records.
However, the court ruled that one of the 120 e-mails did contain material related to Mr. Griffis’ county work and must be released.
The appellate court said it was not deciding whether Mr. Griffis’ personal e-mails had to be released under a Pinal County policy that stated that e-mails on county computers are not private and are subject to disclosure.
That possible alternative legal approach to the case was not argued in the trial court and would have to be litigated from scratch, the ruling said.
Peter S. Kozinets, a lawyer for Phoenix Newspapers, said the ruling was under review and that no decision had been made on whether to appeal it to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Mr. Griffis retired shortly after being placed on leave by the county Board of Supervisors in December when a sheriff’s investigation indicated that he spent about $21,000 of county money on sniper rifles, scopes, ammunition, and equipment that officials said he kept for personal use.
Pinal County has hired a former Maricopa County prosecutor to investigate further.
FYI
The case is Griffis vs. Pinal County, 2 CA-CV-2006-0052.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.