News updates are sent daily. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Court: Arpaio didn't provide records 'promptly'
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn't get to decide how quickly the law requires him to respond to public records requests, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded Tuesday.
The justices, without comment, rejected requests by Arpaio to overturn an appellate court ruling that said he had not complied with the requirements of state law to provide records "promptly." That decision concluded that delays that sometimes extended beyond 100 days cannot be considered reasonable.
But Jack McIntyre, the sheriff's attorney, said the ruling isn't a total defeat for Arpaio. It still leaves it up to a trial judge to decide whether the delays, while illegal, were in bad faith, arbitrary or capricious. Only if a judge finds that to be the case will the sheriff's department have to pay the legal fees of New Times, the weekly newspaper whose records requests were held up.
The paper had sought various items, ranging from personnel records to reports about the investigation of Dan Saban on allegations of sexual misconduct. Saban, Arpaio's Democratic opponent this year, was running against Arpaio four years ago in the Republican primary.
The sheriff's office said the Saban investigation was transferred to another agency. But 143 days later, after the lawsuit was filed and the election was over, the department concluded that it did, in fact, have some records.
In another incident, a sheriff's office employee said she didn't respond for 141 days because she didn't want to communicate with the reporter.
The appellate court said Arizona law requires that those who have public documents shall promptly furnish such copies, photographs or printouts. It also said any request that is not promptly honored is deemed to have been denied.
State law does not define "promptly," and the appellate court acknowledged that delays have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
But it also concluded that public agencies can't avoid their legal responsibilities for prompt responses simply because an employee neglected to pursue the request.
Please add your comments, but follow these guidelines to keep this a safe, credible place for discussing the news: