Lunney v. State
418 P.3d 943
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- After their son’s death in Dec. 2012, Robin and John Lunney submitted multiple public-records requests to Arizona DPS and ADOT seeking investigation-related materials.
- In July 2014 Assistant AG Fred Zeder directed agencies to route requests/responses through the Attorney General’s (AG) office; the AG’s office then forwarded responses to the Lunneys as “Supplemental Disclosures.”
- The Lunneys sued under A.R.S. § 39-121 alleging unlawful denial/delay of public records; the superior court found for the State after a four-day hearing and specific findings on contested requests.
- Relevant contested issues included whether agencies must search electronic databases for responsive records, whether officers’ private cell-phone records used for public business are subject to disclosure, whether routing requests through the AG unlawfully delayed or obstructed disclosure, and whether specific responses were “prompt.”
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part: it upheld AG involvement, held agencies must query their electronic databases and produce responsive records (but need not compile new aggregate records), laid out rules for private cell-phone records becoming public, and found one 135‑day delay was not prompt requiring remand for sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether routing requests through the AG violates Arizona Public Records Law | Lunney: law requires agencies to furnish records directly to requestor; routing through AG improperly restricts access | State: AG is chief legal officer; agencies may seek legal advice and route requests without violating statute if not causing undue delay | Routing through AG is permissible; no violation where it did not cause significant delay |
| Whether agencies must query/search electronic databases for responsive records | Lunney: DPS must search departmental databases and produce responsive officer/shift data | State: agencies need not create or compile new documents from disparate databases; may decline overbroad ‘‘compile’’ requests | Agencies must query/search electronic databases and produce existing responsive records, but are not required to create new aggregate compilations |
| Whether personal cell-phone records of officers used for public business are public records | Lunney: cell-phone records used in ordinary course of employment have substantial nexus to agency and are public | State: purely personal records are private; DPS does not collect personal phone records | If requester shows officer used personal phone for public purpose (threshold low), records may be public; otherwise privacy protects them; court affirmed no production here because records were not shown to exist |
| Whether State’s responses were prompt (timeliness) | Lunney: multiple responses were untimely or incomplete; 135‑day delay unacceptable | State: many responses were timely given volume or burdens; some delays due to human error/complexity | 135‑day (95 working days) response to one request was not prompt without justification (remand for sanctions); other responses were prompt or not successfully challenged on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1 (2007) (defines public-records analysis and substantial-nexus threshold)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Department of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 142 (App. 2016) (agency must search electronic databases but need not compile new aggregate information)
- Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio, 217 Ariz. 533 (App. 2008) (requirement of prompt production; burden on agency to justify delay)
- Mathews v. Pyle, 75 Ariz. 76 (1952) (three definitions of public records; nature and purpose test)
- Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487 (1984) (presumption in favor of disclosure; confidentiality exceptions)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (privacy interests in personal cell phones)