Open government advocates around New Mexico celebrated last week following the State Supreme Court’s decision in the (Andrew) Jones versus Department of Public Safety case.
This case was brought by Andrew Jones against the Department because he was denied some records associated with the shooting of his brother James Boyd, by Albuquerque Police detectives.
The Court found the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act does not support law enforcement’s use of “under investigation” as a bona fide reason to withhold public records.
This illegal excuse is a favorite of almost every law enforcement agency when they simply don’t want the public to know what the status of a case truly is. They may no longer play that card and sit pat.
Media and those who routinely use the Act to gain access to records have long fought this to no avail. It always comes down to who has the records and whether they’ll allow inspection. If you didn’t like it, court was your alternative.
In reaching its decision the Court simply relied on the Act itself. There was no need to interpret it or assign a different meaning to the words. New Mexico State Statute 14-2-1 A (4) clearly states the only exception for not releasing law enforcement records are those that reveal confidential sources, methods, information or individuals accused but not charged with a crime. Investigation has never entered into it.
This case also resulted in 2018 of a strange finding by the Court of Appeals regarding the recovery of attorney’s fees and court costs. Jones was trying to recover his fees after State Police gave him the records claimed the FBI told them to not release.
The Rio Grande SUN was fighting State Police on a similar claim in a different case and we hoped for a clear decision from the Court of Appeals that a federal agency cannot tell a state or local agency how to handle records requests.
Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals ruled on the recovery of fees and remained silent on the argument regarding the Act trumping a lawyer working for the FBI, or in our case a U.S. Attorney General in Las Vegas, Nev.
The icing on this lovely cake was the Court also found documents containing public and protected information may not be withheld in toto. The records custodian must redact the protected information and release the rest.
This too is a favorite of law enforcement. This won’t stop the clever custodians from blacking out a page and handing it over but we would hope some of them would allow some respect to a state Supreme Court ruling.
It was a unanimous decision but Justice Barbara Vigil wrote the opinion. We’ve been before Justice Vigil when she was a District Court judge and always found her fair and supportive of public’s ability to access its government and the records that government creates. She hasn’t changed.