Midterm Guide - Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated: Public records can only be withheld if their release would have an important and harmful effect on the agency or the officers. Arrest Information: There are no laws regulating the release of information on arrests. ARS 13-3005 : It is a felony for a person who is not a party to a conversation to engage in wiretapping or eavesdropping by means of an electronic, mechanical, or other device. THIS MEANS that you can record a conversation without the persons consent, AS LONG AS THEY’RE TALKING TO YOU. You cannot, for example, put a recorder in a room and record a conversation of 2 people talking if neither of them know it is being recorded. ARS 38-431 : See Open Meetings. ARS 39-121.01 (D)(1): Any person may request a copy of any “public record” or other matter during office hours, and the agency may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of such records. ARS 39-121.02(B): Any person wrongfully denied access to public records may bring a special action in superior court to obtain such records. If the court finds that the custodian of the public record acted “in bad faith, or in arbitrary or capricious manner” in withholding access, the court may award attorneys’ fees to the person seeking access to the records. ARS 39-121.03(A): A person requesting copies of public records for a commercial purpose is required to submit a certified statement setting forth the commercial purpose for which the copies will be used. JOURNALISTS DO NOT COUNT AS SEEKING FOR COMMERCIAL USE. ARS-123 (c)(1)Rule: “Records in all courts and administrative offices of the Judicial Department of the State of Arizona are open to any member of the public for inspection or to obtain copies at all times during regular office hours and the office having custody of the records.” The mere assertion that release of search warrant documents could be harmful to an ongoing investigation is insufficient to justify sealing the materials. Branzburg v. Hayes : Invalidates the use of the first amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. “The petitioners were asking the Court to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." Carefree Improvement Association v. City of Scottsdale: Means that it is likely for the court to invalidate action taken at a meeting where there was a misleading element in the notice given. Written by David Robbins for Group 11 Page 1 of 7
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Carlson v. Pima County: Held that “An agency may only withhold documents if it is able to demonstrate a “countervailing interest of confidentiality, privacy, or the best interests of the state” outweighing the public’s right to know. Chandler v. Florida
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/22/2008 for the course JOUR 208 taught by Professor Kemper during the Spring '07 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Page1 / 7

Midterm Guide - Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online