An appeals court victory by a West Valley newspaper in a public records dispute with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not be the end of the issue. The sheriff is expected to appeal the ruling, while the paper contemplates a second suit to get easier access to police reports.
The Aug. 16 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling affirms a trial court decision that records requests filed by the West Valley View obligate the sheriff’s office to continually provide hard copies of press releases the same day the information is e-mailed to other media outlets.
It also forces Arpaio’s office to pay for the newspaper’s attorneys’ fees incurred to fight the appeal and orders Maricopa County Superior Court to reconsider its refusal to award the newspaper’s attorneys’ fees for the trial court process.
In fall 2005, Arpaio’s office dropped the newspaper from its e-mail distribution list because it was displeased the paper did not respond to proposed story ideas and press releases, according to the opinion.
“We like to see that our work is fruitful and we’ve sent (the West Valley View) multiple story ideas, multiple releases and quite frankly don’t see them covered,” the opinion quotes Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Lt. Paul Chagolla, saying to the newspaper’s managing editor during a phone conversation.
Request for e-mails ignored
Subsequent filed requests for the press releases under Arizona Public Records Law were ignored by the office, and in June 2006 a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered the paper be allowed to pick up or be mailed the information upon release.
The Court of Appeals opinion notes the newspaper conceded that public records laws were not violated by the MCSO’s dropping of the West Valley View from its e-mail distribution list.
Dennis Wilenchik, attorney for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, said records laws can be used to gather documents after their dissemination, but argued they do not authorize continuing orders demanding documents to be issued in the future.
But that would unlawfully force the newspaper to “somehow discover on its own that a press release had been issued” and require separate public records requests, according Judge Diane Johnsen, author of the unanimously ruled opinion.
Wilenchik said the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office would file a motion to reconsider that issue with the court, and file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
“The issue relating to the future production [of records] we felt was of interest to us and all other agencies and really needs a [Supreme Court] ruling because it has never been ruled on,” said Wilenchik, adding that he believed the process would unfairly burden public agencies.
Jim Painter, managing editor of the West Valley View, called the Appeals Court ruling a “moral victory,” but added an additional lawsuit is being considered to force Arpaio to allow the viewing of police reports at a nearby substation in Avondale, instead of the main office in downtown Phoenix.
He said a column calling for the sheriff’s removal caused the friction, and blasted Arpaio’s career as “one PR stunt after another.”
“What we’d really like to get are press releases about crimes in the West Valley,” Painter said. “They’re all promotion pieces promoting something Arpaio has done.”
Dan Barr, attorney for the West Valley View, said the sheriff’s office has been “going out of its way” to inconvenience the newspaper following Chagolla’s “temper tantrum.”
“It would take two seconds to put the West Valley View on their e-mail blast list but they won’t do it,” said Barr, who praised the newspaper for “standing up to this nonsense.”
According to the Court of Appeals opinion, the newspaper became aware that it had been dropped from the sheriff department’s e-mail list in the fall of 2005 after it did not receive notification of the discovery of two murder victims at a Buckeye construction site.
Arpaio said he could not comment on the lawsuit because it effectively related to news media.