Back to Blog
Pima county court records6/23/2023 ![]() Section 39-121.01(B) creates a statutory mandate which, in effect, requires all officers to make and maintain records reasonably necessary to provide knowledge of all activities they undertake in the furtherance of their duties. *490 any person elected or appointed to hold any elective or appointive office of any public body and any chief administrative officer, head, director, superintendent or chairman of any public body. ![]() The 1975 amendments define an officer for purposes of this article as: Maintain all records reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and of any of their activities which are supported by funds from the state or any political subdivision thereof.Ī.R.S. The statute requires a public "officer" to § 39-121.01(A) and (B) appear to define those matters to which the public right of inspection applies more broadly. It has also been held that a written record of transactions of a public officer in his office, which is a convenient and appropriate method of discharging his duties, and is kept by him as such, whether required by the express provision of law or not, is admissible as a public record. Īlso a record is a `public record' which is required by law to be kept, or necessary to be kept in the discharge of a duty imposed by law or directed by law to serve as a memorial and evidence of something written, said or done. One made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference. Prior to these amendments, this Court had defined a public record as: A 1975 enactment amended the public records statutes considerably, but still provides no definitions. However, Title 39 does not contain a definition of "public records" or "other matters". Public records and other matters in the office of any officer at all times during office hours shall be open to inspection by any person.Ī.R.S. What Constitutes Public Records or Other Matters for the Purposes of the Public's Right to Inspection?Īrizona's public records statutes, Title 39, provide a broad right of inspection to the public: Thus, the court concluded the public had a right of access to the report and its publication was privileged as a matter of law. Therefore, reasoned the court, the offense report was a public record which the Sheriff had the duty to make. ![]() § 11-441(A)(1) and he must "take charge of and keep the county jail and the prisoners therein", A.R.S. § 31-121 the Sheriff is charged with keeping the peace, A.R.S. The court noted that the Sheriff must receive all persons committed to the jail and provide them with necessities, A.R.S. The court of appeals held that Sheriff Dupnik was a "public officer," A.R.S. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had not erred in directing a verdict for the Sheriff. Sheriff Dupnik was granted a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence it is from the judgment entered on this verdict that plaintiff appealed. At the end of plaintiff's case, the court directed a verdict for all of the defendants except Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. On JCarlson filed a complaint for defamation against Pima County, the individual members of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, and the Pima County Corrections Director. The story he wrote named the three alleged offenders and, when viewed in its worst light, told the public that Carlson had been accused of forcible oral sex with another inmate. The names of the three alleged offenders *489 and the details of the incident were written up in an "offense report." On a routine "beat check," a United Press International reporter obtained the information in the report. On March 19, 1981, Lawrence Carlson (plaintiff), an inmate of the Pima County Jail, was implicated in an alleged assault on another inmate. § 12-2101(B) and Rule 23, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S. We accepted review to examine and clarify the concept of "public records" and the public's right of access thereto. 1984), affirming a verdict directed in favor of defendants. Carlson, the plaintiff in a defamation suit against Pima County and its Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, petitions this Court for review of a decision of the court of appeals, 141 Ariz. Berkman, Tucson, for defendants/appellees. Michael Tully, Tucson, for plaintiff/appellant. PIMA COUNTY, a body politic, and Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff, Defendants/Appellees.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |