Source: http://www.archives.state.ut.us/src/srcappeal-2017-15.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 13:55:19
Document Index: 762810934

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63']

ANDREW BECKER, Petitioner, v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE. Respondent.
By this appeal, Petitioner, Andrew Becker, seeks access to records held by Respondent, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
In a letter dated January 3, 2017, Nicole Loe from the law office Schatz Anderson & Associates, filed a request for records on behalf of Mr. Becker from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office (“Office”) pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Ms. Loe requested copies of “any and all police reports” associated with an incident involving Mr. Becker and the Office occurring on December 30, 2016. Ms. Loe also requested any “audio and video recordings” from any officer involved in the incident. On January 18, 2017, the records officer for the Office granted in part and denied in part the records request, granting access to private records where Mr. Becker was the subject of the record, but denying access to records that had been classified as protected records.
In a letter dated January 24, 2017, Richard Jorgensen, an attorney from the law office Schatz Anderson & Associates, filed an appeal on behalf of Mr. Becker with Sheriff Cory Pulsipher. The Office granted in part and denied in part the appeal, finding that some of the records could not be disclosed because an “investigation is ongoing.” Ms. Loe and the law office of Schatz Anderson and Associates filed an appeal on behalf of Mr. Becker with the State Records Committee (“Committee”). On April 13, 2017, a hearing was before the Committee where the parties were allowed to present their legal arguments. After having reviewed the arguments submitted by the parties, having heard oral argument and testimony, and having reviewed one of the disputed records in camera, the Committee now issues the following Decision and Order:
2.	Initial contact reports as defined by Utah Code § 63G-2-103(14), are normally public. Utah Code § 63G-2-301(3)(g). DUI reports are generally prepared immediately following the incident and while the information is fresh in the reporting officer’s experience, and “clearly includes the type of information reflected in the statutory definition” of an initial contact report. Utah Dept. of Public Safety v. State Records Comm., 3rd Judicial Dist. Case No. 100904439 (June 17, 2010). Therefore generally, DUI reports are public records. Id. The Committee finds that the DUI report in the present case should be released to Mr. Becker as a public record.
4.	Records containing data on individuals the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are private records if properly classified by a governmental entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).
5.	A second video responsive to the records request, was a police officer’s body camera video which included images of a passenger inside Mr. Becker’s vehicle. Counsel for the Office argued that release of the video unredacted would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of Mr. Becker’s passenger. The Committee agrees with the Office, finding that the video was properly classified as a private record pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d), and therefore, properly redacted.
6.	If the Office could not provide an unredacted copy of the second video, Mr. Becker requested that the Office waive the cost of redacting the video. A governmental entity “may fulfill a record request” without charge and is encouraged to do so when it determines that: (1) The individual requesting the record is the subject of the record; or (2) The requester’s legal rights are directly implicated by the information in the record, and the requester is impecunious. Utah Code § 63G-2-203(4)(b) & (c).
7.	Under GRAMA, the discretion for granting a fee waiver is essentially left to the governmental entity providing the record. The standard of review for the Committee is to determine whether the governmental entity’s decision denying a request for a fee waiver was an “unreasonable denial of a fee waiver.” See, Utah Code § 63G-2-203(6)(a). After reviewing arguments from the parties, the Committee finds that the denial of Mr. Becker’s request for a fee waiver was not an unreasonable denial by the Office.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Andrew Becker, is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.