As used in the Inspection of Public Records Act:

1. A. "custodian" means any person responsible for the maintenance, care or keeping of a public body's public records, regardless of whether the records are in that person's actual physical custody and control;
2. B. "file format" means the internal structure of an electronic file that defines the way it is stored and used;

3. C. "information technology systems" means computer hardware, storage media, networking equipment, physical devices, infrastructure, processes and code, firmware, software and ancillary products and services, including:

   1. (1) systems design and analysis;
   2. (2) development or modification of hardware or solutions used to create, process, store, secure or exchange electronic data;
   3. (3) information storage and retrieval systems;
   4. (4) voice, radio, video and data communication systems;
   5. (5) network, hosting and cloud-based systems;
   6. (6) simulation and testing;
   7. (7) interactions between a user and an information system; and
   8. (8) user and system credentials;
4. D. "inspect" means to review all public records that are not excluded in Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978;
5. E. "person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association or entity;

6. F. "protected personal identifier information" means:

   1. (1) all but the last four digits of a:

      1. (a) taxpayer identification number;
      2. (b) financial account number;
      3. (c) credit or debit card number; or
      4. (d) driver's license number;
   2. (2) all but the year of a person's date of birth;
   3. (3) a social security number; and
   4. (4) with regard to a nonelected employee of a public body in the context of the person's employment, the employee's nonbusiness home street address, but not the city, state or zip code;
7. G. "public body" means the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state and local governments and all advisory boards, commissions, committees, agencies or entities created by the constitution or any branch of government that receives any public funding, including political subdivisions, special taxing districts, school districts and institutions of higher education;
8. H. "public records" means all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of any public body and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained; and
9. I. "trade secret" means trade secret as defined in Subsection D of Section 57-3A-2 NMSA 1978.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 258, § 3; 2011, ch. 134, § 3; 2011, ch. 181, § 1; 2011, ch. 182, § 1; 2013, ch. 117, § 1; 2013, ch. 214, § 2; 2018, ch. 61, § 1; 2023, ch. 67, § 4.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2023 amendment, effective March 30, 2023, defined "information technology systems" and revised the definition of "protected personal identifier information"; added a new Subsection C, and redesignated former Subsections C through H as Subsections D through I, respectively; and in Subsection F, added a new Subparagraph F(1)(c), redesignated former Subparagraph F(1)(c) as Subparagraph F(1)(d), and added Paragraph F(4).

The 2018 amendment, effective May 16, 2018, added the definition of "trade secret" as used in the Inspection of Public Records Act; and added Subsection H.

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, added the definition of "protected personal identifier information", and relettered the succeeding subsections.

The 2011 amendment, effective June 17, 2011, added the definition of "file format" in Subsection B; and relettered the succeeding subsections accordingly.

A private actor that contracts with a governmental entity to perform a public function is subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act. State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.

Factors to determine whether a private entity is subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act. — Courts should consider the following factors in deciding whether private entities are subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act: (1) the level of public funding; (2) commingling of funds; (3) whether the activity was conducted on publicly owned property; (4) whether the services contracted for are an integral part of the agency’s chosen decision-making process; (5) whether the private entity is performing a governmental function or a function which the public agency otherwise would perform; (6) the extent of the public agency’s involvement with, regulation of, or control over the private entity; (7) whether the private entity was created by the public agency; (8) whether the public agency has a substantial financial interest in the private entity; and (9) for whose benefit the private entity is functioning. State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.

A private entity was subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act. — Where the municipality acquired a public access channel and adopted an ordinance that required the municipality to be responsible for management of the access channel and to adopt rules, regulations and procedures for the use of the access channel; the municipality contracted with a private entity to operate the access channel; the operation agreement required the private entity to operate the access channel in a manner that was consistent with the ordinance; the municipality funded the private entity with an annual grant that was released to the private entity when it gave the municipality an annual activity plan and budget; the private entity was required to account for how the funds were spent; for a nominal rent, the municipality leased the basement of the municipal civic center to the private entity to use as the public access television center; the municipality had the right to terminate the operating agreement without cause; the operating agreement identified the private entity as an independent contractor and stated that no principal or agent relationship existed between the municipality and the private entity; and the municipality denied plaintiff’s request for recordings of city commission meetings that the private entity had recorded and played on the access channel, the private entity was acting on behalf of the municipality in its role as the access channel operational organization, and the recordings of city commission meetings made by the private entity were public records subject to inspection. State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.

Settlement agreement documents were public records. — Where respondent, a private prison medical services provider that provided contracted healthcare services for the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD), negotiated and settled at least fifty-nine civil claims alleging instances of improper care and/or sexual assault of inmates, and where petitioners submitted written requests pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act seeking all settlement documents involving respondent in its role as medical services contractor for NMCD, the district court did not err in issuing a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to produce the settlement agreements and pay petitioners' reasonable attorney fees, because the settlement agreements were created as a result of respondent's public function acting on behalf of NMCD. Third-party settlement agreements resulting from medical care provided under a contract with the state are public documents subject to disclosure. N.M. Found. for Open Gov't v. Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, cert. denied.

Definition of "public records" in Public Records Act (14-3-1 to 14-3-16 NMSA 1978) does not apply to section, the Inspection of Public Records Act. State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.

"Relate to public business" construed. — Where plaintiff submitted an IPRA request to the New Mexico department of game and fish [department of wildlife] (NMDGF) seeking the names and email address given by all applicants for hunting licenses in 2015 and 2016, which NMDGF determined amounted to over 300,000 entries, and where NMDGF concluded that plaintiff's request sought personal identifier information that did not constitute a public record subject to disclosure and agreed to produce only the applicants' names, the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because IPRA's definition of "relating to public business" means that the requested records are connected to governmental affairs or official actions by or on behalf of public bodies, and therefore the email addresses NMDGF collected in connection with its licensing system constitute public records that are subject to disclosure. Dunn v. N.M. Dep't of Game & Fish, 2020-NMCA-026.

IPRA catchall "as otherwise provided by law" exception incorporates regulations having the force of law. — Based on the plain language of 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, the "catchall provision," and from its construction by New Mexico courts, it is apparent that the legislature's purpose is to allow the confidentiality provisions of other statutes, regulations, court rules, and constitutional privileges to be applied as exceptions to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and to do so without the legislature having to enact each of them again as part of IPRA. Beck v. State ex rel. CYFD, 2024-NMCA-082, cert. denied.

CYFD regulation prohibiting the disclosure of foster parents' identifying information has the force of law and is incorporated by the catchall "as otherwise provided by law" exception. — Where the children, youth and families department (CYFD) redacted the names, email addresses, and physical addresses of CYFD licensed foster parents from its responses to plaintiff's requests for emails, text messages, and other meeting notes mentioning plaintiff by name, claiming that the names and other personally-identifying information of foster parents sought by plaintiff were exempt from disclosure under the catchall, "as otherwise provided by law" exception to IPRA inspection, 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, and where plaintiff claimed that 14-2-6(F) NMSA 1978 and 14-2-1.1 NMSA 1978, which together allow state agencies to redact certain "protected personal identifiers" from all documents prior to their inspection under IPRA, provide the exclusive list of personal identifying information that may be exempted from inspection by a public agency under IPRA, the district court erred in requiring CYFD to make available for inspection the personal identifying information of CYFD licensed foster parents, because CYFD's regulation protecting the personally identifying information of foster parents is a regulation having the force of law, enforceable under the "as otherwise provided by law" exception. Beck v. State ex rel. CYFD, 2024-NMCA-082, cert. denied.

Faculty salary matters are not public records until the culmination of the contract between the board and the individual; thought processes, or the offer of a contract, are not such a public record as would require public inspection, so that the right to inspect records of the board of regents of a state university on the subject of salary contract negotiations before the task was completed should be denied. Sanchez v. Board of Regents, 1971-NMSC-065, 82 N.M. 672, 486 P.2d 608.

Term "public records" is intended to include all papers or memoranda in the possession of public officers which are required by law to be kept by them. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-131.

Public records. — Elements essential to constitute a public record are that it be made by a public officer and that the officer be authorized by law to make it. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-55.

A state agency is a "person", for purposes of IPRA, and may request public records from other state agencies. — Where the state ethics commission (commission) sent a public records request, pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, to the New Mexico human services department [health care authority department] (department), asking the department to provide copies of certain emails from several named employees, and where the department denied the request claiming that the commission, itself a "public body" for the purposes of IPRA, is not a "person" entitled to make public records requests, the department erred in denying the commission’s public records request, because a public body is an "entity," within the definition of "person," § 14-2-6(D), and therefore the plain language of IPRA demonstrates that public bodies can submit public records requests to other public bodies. This reading of the statute is also consistent with IPRA’s declared purpose, that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. Public Records Requests Made by the State Ethics Comm’n (10/27/21), Att’y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2021-12.