A compensation claim that a teenage rape victim filed against a school district is a public record and should be disclosed because it bears on government’s performance of its duties, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled June 12.
However, the girl’s name and possibly other information can be withheld to protect her privacy, the court said.
Arizona law has a strong presumption for release of public records and there’s no specific exception for claims against governments, according to a unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel.
Also, laws to shield rape victims’ previous sexual history and to seal juvenile court records don’t apply in such cases, the ruling said.
The girl had argued that the claim filed with the Scottsdale Unified School District shouldn’t be released, but the Court of Appeals overturned a trial judge’s ruling and concluded that the claim was a public record and of public interest.
“The notice (of claim) is written evidence that a claim for damages exists against the district that may affect its operations and finances,” Judge Patrick Irvine wrote for the panel. “This potential liability is of concern to the public. Equally, the public has an interest in the response, if any, by the district to the notice.”
The victim was raped in a Saguaro High School restroom after school last year, and a Maricopa County Superior Court jury recently convicted a former janitor of six criminal charges that included sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse of a minor and public sexual indecency.
The girl had objected to a request by Phoenix Newspapers Inc. for release of the claim, which she had filed as a precursor to a lawsuit against the district.
While the girl’s lawyers argued that the claim is not of public interest because the district did not respond to it, the Court of Appeals said the amount that the claimant would have settled for “may be of great interest to the public if the amount ultimately awarded or paid is much higher,” Irvine wrote.
Phoenix Newspapers, which publishes The Arizona Republic said the victim’s name and medical history could be easily redacted while still providing relevant information on her basic allegations and the money she sought, Irvine noted.
“We see no reason why disclosure of this information would violate (the victim’s) privacy interests if her name is redacted,” he wrote.
The Court of Appeals ordered the trial judge to review the claim “to determine what parts, if any, should not be released.”
The case is Phoenix Newspapers Inc. vs. Jane Doe, 1 CA-SA 07-0099.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.