Tucson police arrest for 2004 public record
She further testified that she did not respond to the request in any way until October 14, , because she was angry with the New Times and did not want to communicate with Dougherty. She explicitly testified:.
- dui diabetes and dui and arizona!
- About Arizona Open Public Record.
- public records search databases premium members.
- Arizona Free Public Records Directory.
- inmate in west virginia regional jail;
- Woonsocket police blotter.
That production was days, or ninety-eight working days, after the request had been made. Driving Hawk's personnel file when it provided the file days after the request was made. Even accepting MacPherson's testimony that she interpreted a request for Sgt. Any such excuse is more properly aimed at the issue of whether a failure to furnish records was in bad faith, arbitrary, or capricious, and not at whether the disclosure was prompt.
Keegan, Ariz. If public entities could be excused from providing public records merely by being inattentive to requests, then access to the records would be easily frustrated.
- marriage therapists ronald johnson wisconsin canada;
- Arizona Public Records.
- Arizona Public Records!
- Kyle mcneal tucson.
Thus, evidence of inattentiveness on the part of the public body does not establish the promptness of a response. See State v. Williams, Ariz. MCSO produced the records on October 4, , days seventy-five working days after the request was made. I don't know if-I wouldn't say that. I-I assembled all that information and got it over to him before I assembled it. There was a lot of information because there were a variety of different bids and so forth that we were putting together. Well, I would go to the Custody people, and they would go to their-a variety of their people to get all the documents for-reference the fish pond together.
And it took some time. I mean, he's not-he's not the only reporter that we end up having to do work for. In the days it took to fill the request, she only remembers making three phone calls to two people in an effort to get the request filled. Cleaver v. Kelley, F. Chourre v.
Although the request was made on June 18, MacPherson could not remember when she first began attempting to assemble the documents or when she received them. She could not remember whether attempts to respond were triggered by the lawsuit which was filed more than three months later. She only testified to three phone calls to two different people over the course of three and one-half months in an effort to get the request filled.
MCSO never informed the New Times of the status of its request or of any efforts to fulfill it during the days it took to respond to the New Times' request. Under these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to meet MCSO's burden that it provided the documents promptly pursuant to statutory requirements. All records related to the current contract between the sheriff's office and the entity that provides vending machine services to the county jails including tent city.
This includes, but is not limited to, all requests for proposals, copies of all contracts, correspondence, written and electronic, between the sheriff's office and the vending company. All requests for proposals and contracts between MCSO and all public, private or nonprofit entities that are involved in any way in the operation of the MCSO canteen from January 1, through June 28, This includes, but is not limited to, all written records documenting the purchases of goods for the canteen, the resale of goods to inmates and detainees, the collection of funds from the sale of goods and the disposition of the funds.
Is Police Misconduct a Secret in Your State? | WNYC
All internal MCSO correspondence, written and electronic, concerning the operation, sales, collection and disposition of funds generated by the MCSO canteen from January 1, through June 28, After the lawsuit was filed, many boxes of records were produced from MCSO that were responsive to these requests. The public body may indicate to those requesting such documents that the records sought may be obtained more efficiently and less expensively from another source, but this does not remove from the public body the obligation to provide access or copies of the records that it has if the requesting party does not withdraw its request.
Because MCSO presents no evidence suggesting why it took such a lengthy amount of time to provide these documents, we find, as a matter of law, that it did not meet its burden of establishing a prompt response and thus that the New Times was wrongfully denied access to these records. The court therefore erred in concluding otherwise. She further testified that she relayed this information to Dougherty by voicemail the same day.
There was no testimony that Dougherty ever withdrew the request. According to MacPherson, it was not until a few days later that she learned an inmate death had in fact occurred on July 9, , but she nonetheless failed to correct the misinformation. She testified that she did not inform Dougherty upon learning of the error because she thought it was sufficient that she had told him that there was no death:.
I was told that there was no death. I told [Dougherty], and I figured that was the end of it.
PHOENIX NEW TIMES v. ARPAIO
Finally, in her affidavit filed May 17, , MacPherson stated that she failed to inform Dougherty because she assumed he would not be interested in it, as she was told that it had been a natural death. First, after an agency learns that it erroneously responded to a records request, the agency may not justify its failure to provide records by claiming that it no longer has any responsibility to provide them.
Rogers v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. See Bolm, Ariz. Finally, MCSO did not establish that no records were made concerning the inmate death until shortly before the records were provided to the New Times on October An agency may not wait to provide records already available until a final report is produced.
- find ford new cars in belgium!
- were to find used cars.
- free background reports on people!
The trial court therefore erred in concluding that the New Times was not wrongfully denied these records. MCSO had an employee by that name, but he was not a deputy. The response was prompt because it was made on the same day as the request by the New Times. The response was accurate because the New Times submitted a specific request that MCSO answered with equal specificity. MCSO had no reason to know that the New Times wanted the payroll records of a non-deputy when the New Times requested the records of a deputy.
Thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that these records were not wrongfully denied. All sheriff's office reports related to the arrest of Gabriel Golden and Eric Kush on or about July 23, All booking information related to the arrest of Mr. Golden and Mr. Kush on or about July 23, All sheriff's office reports related to the tactical actions taken during an incident at S. Cyan Court in which an armored vehicle was deployed and struck a private passenger vehicle and multiple tear gas canisters were fired into the residence which eventually was engulfed in fire.
All reports related to the death of a pet dog that resulted from the fire at S.
Pima County Arrest, Court, and Public Records
Cyan Court. Cyan Court on or about July 23, Chagolla responded on July 30, , with an e-mail informing Dougherty that he would be in touch with Dougherty about these requests when the investigation was complete. Dougherty responded with an e-mail pointing out that the arrest and booking records should already be available, but MCSO never responded any further to this request until after the lawsuit was filed.
Dougherty specifically asked for the arrest and booking records associated with the two suspects who had been apprehended shortly before the request was made in July As Lt. Chagolla's deposition evidences, those records were available when the New Times requested them. In addition, MCSO already had the videotape on the day the New Times requested a copy of it, yet neither the videotape nor any other records of any type were released until after this lawsuit was filed. Chagolla acknowledged that he made no effort to furnish any of the requested records in the interim.
Chagolla testified that the e-mail had been in his inbox since August 26, , but that he did not notice it until he looked for it after the lawsuit was filed a month later. Chagolla, nor does it assert that it was inappropriate for the New Times to transmit the public records request by e-mail. As discussed above in conjunction with the Driving Hawk request, such inattention by the employee of a public body does not meet that body's burden of establishing that it promptly provided documents that were clearly requested and readily available.
Because MCSO has not met its burden of establishing that it promptly responded to this request, we find that the New Times was wrongfully denied access to documents responsive thereto and thus that the trial court erred. As well, there is not a process to capture the inmate assignments you have requested.
Chagolla had inquired about booking records but not about any other departmental records related to inmates serving jail sentences at the Mesa jail, as requested by Dougherty. He testified as follows:. I asked [Lt. Shepherd] if we had any booking records regarding anybody booked into [the] Southeast facility. While we presume that Ed Shepherd is the person most knowledgeable about the East Mesa jail facility, his own deposition indicates that he is not the person most knowledgeable about East Mesa jail facility records, which was the designation requested by the New Times.
If you want to know on any given day what individuals are in the East Mesa Jail Facility, is it possible for you to find that out from the computer?
There's no way to determine who is in the District One jail on any given day, unless you know the name ahead of time? Well, you're asking me a question that I can only answer by saying I have no idea how to get it out of there.