Jones v. N.M. Dep't of Public Safety, 470 P.3d 252

Background:

On April 8, 2014 Andrew Jones requested DPS records relating to the March 16, 2014 police shooting of James Boyd; DPS produced a primary incident report, an officer personnel record, and one subpoena but withheld other records.
DPS withheld records citing IPRA exception NMSA 1978 §14-2-1(A)(4) and an ongoing FBI investigation; the FBI had requested delay “to the extent possible under IPRA.”
Jones sued under IPRA seeking production and attorney fees; he moved for summary judgment arguing DPS’s withholding was unlawful and that FBI cooperation did not override IPRA.
The district court denied Jones’s motion, found an ongoing investigation warranted withholding under §14-2-1(A)(4), set procedures for later review, and later granted DPS summary judgment after DPS produced the records post-investigation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that Jones had acquiesced and that the case was moot; the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §14-2-1(A)(4) creates a blanket exemption for records relating to an ongoing criminal investigation	Jones: No; exemption applies only to records that reveal confidential sources, methods, information, or individuals accused but not charged—content-based, not stage-based	DPS: Yes; Legislature intended records pertaining to ongoing investigations to remain sealed until investigation complete	Held: Court rejects DPS; §14-2-1(A)(4) is content-specific and does not exempt all records merely because an investigation is ongoing
Whether Jones acquiesced (procedural preservation) to the district court’s interlocutory order	Jones: He preserved his objection to withholding and did not need to seek interlocutory relief to preserve the issue	DPS: Failure to object to the district court’s production procedure amounted to acquiescence	Held: Court finds Jones did not acquiesce and sufficiently preserved the contention that records were wrongly withheld
Mootness of appeal after DPS produced the records	Jones: Although records were later produced, his claim for attorney fees and the legality of withholding remain live	DPS/Ct. App.: Production moots injunctive relief and precludes fees because court previously found withholding lawful	Held: Not moot as to attorney fees or the legal question; Court of Appeals erred to dismiss on mootness grounds
Whether DPS met its burden to justify withholding and whether summary judgment rulings were correct	Jones: DPS failed to present evidence showing the withheld records actually contained exempt content or that it separated exempt from nonexempt information as IPRA requires	DPS: Reliance on ongoing investigation, FBI request, district court order, and public-policy grounds justified withholding	Held: DPS failed to meet burden; it produced only evidence of an ongoing investigation and not that records contained the §14-2-1(A)(4) content or that nonexempt material was segregated. Summary judgment to DPS was improper; summary judgment to Jones should have been granted on the legal issue

Key Cases Cited

Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 283 P.3d 853 (N.M. 2012) (construing IPRA’s exceptions and limiting the catch-all "as otherwise provided by law")
Faber v. King, 348 P.3d 173 (N.M. 2015) (IPRA must be construed in light of its purpose to promote public access and prompt compliance)
Estate of Romero v. City of Santa Fe, 137 P.3d 611 (N.M. 2006) (recognizing limited immunity from discovery for some police investigative materials but not an absolute exemption)
United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 285 P.3d 644 (N.M. 2012) (summary judgment orders reviewed de novo)
State v. Armijo, 375 P.3d 415 (N.M. 2016) (plain-meaning rule and statutory interpretation principles)