Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department
239 Ariz. 34
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Beau Hodai requested Tucson Police Department (TPD) records about the cell-site simulator "Stingray," including training materials, purchase/maintenance communications, and communications with Harris Corporation. TPD produced a few redacted documents but withheld additional materials after an FBI review.
- The city submitted several hundred pages in camera (training materials, a PowerPoint, an authorization form, a raw "data dump," and closed and one open case file) and moved to withhold them, citing the FBI affidavit that disclosure would harm law enforcement interests.
- The superior court inspected documents in camera and denied disclosure of all submitted records; Hodai filed a special-action appeal challenging nondisclosure, adequacy/promptness of search, and requesting fees.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals applied Arizona's public records law balancing test (public presumption of disclosure vs. "best interests of the state") and reviewed in camera materials de novo for legal error and for clear error on factual findings.
- The court affirmed withholding of training materials that reveal operational/technical details, affirmed withholding of the ongoing case file and the raw data dump, reversed the blanket withholding of the PowerPoint (ordering disclosure of a redacted version), found the four closed case files were not produced promptly, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPD properly withheld training/quick-reference materials under the "best interests of the state" exception | Hodai: FBI affidavit speculative; materials should be disclosed to inform public about warrants, privacy, and capabilities | City: Disclosure would provide adversaries information to develop countermeasures; FBI review supports nondisclosure | Court: Withholding proper for documents that reveal how device works; but PowerPoint contained non-sensitive procedural content and must be released in redacted form |
| Whether a qualified privilege for investigative techniques applies | Hodai: No privileged shield for public records; any privilege speculative | City: Privilege (analogous to federal criminal cases) protects techniques that, if revealed, would impair law enforcement | Court: Did not decide whether independent privilege exists in Arizona; applied the same balancing test and concluded protection is permissible as part of "best interests" analysis |
| Whether the open case file and exemplar "data dump" must be disclosed | Hodai: Ongoing-investigation reports are public; city must show specific harm | City: Release would jeopardize sensitive ongoing investigation; data contains identifiable details | Court: City met burden; withholding of open case file and data dump affirmed because disclosure would cause specific, material harm |
| Whether the city’s search and responsiveness (including promptness for closed case files and scope of FBI-related records request) were adequate | Hodai: Search inadequate; closed files not promptly produced; request for FBI communications not overbroad | City: Searched thoroughly (one responsible officer); producing all FBI-related communications would be unreasonably burdensome | Held: Search adequate given single custodian and affidavits; production of closed-case reports was not prompt (8–10 months) — error; broad FBI-related communications request properly denied as unduly burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487 (court balances public-access presumption against state-interest harm)
- Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11 (government bears burden to show disclosure would harm best interests of the state)
- Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1 (existence of a public record creates presumption favoring disclosure)
- Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney’s Office, 181 Ariz. 432 (overbroad or speculative claims of harm insufficient to overcome disclosure presumption)
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 201 Ariz. 344 ("best interests of the state" includes interests of government and people; balancing test explained)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 228 Ariz. 393 (agency burden to show undue administrative burden or harm can outweigh disclosure)
- Phoenix New Times v. Arpaio, 217 Ariz. 533 (agency may rely on affidavits to show adequacy/promptness of response; promptness judged under circumstances)
- London v. Broderick, 206 Ariz. 490 (public-disclosure benefits may yield to undue burden on government)
- Arpaio v. Davis, 221 Ariz. 116 (recognizes that extremely broad requests imposing unreasonable resource burdens may be denied)