2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 14 - Records, Rules, Legal Notices, Oaths › Article 2 - Inspection of Public Records › Section 14-2-1 - Right to inspect public records; exceptions.

Every person has a right to inspect public records of this state except:
A. records pertaining to physical or mental examinations and medical treatment of persons confined to an institution;
B. letters of reference concerning employment, licensing or permits;
C. letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files or students' cumulative files;
D. portions of law enforcement records as provided in Section 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978;
E. as provided by the Confidential Materials Act [14-3A-1, 14-3A-2 NMSA 1978];
F. trade secrets;
G. attorney-client privileged information;
H. long-range or strategic business plans of public hospitals discussed in a properly closed meeting;
I. tactical response plans or procedures prepared for or by the state or a political subdivision of the state, the publication of which could reveal specific vulnerabilities, risk assessments or tactical emergency security procedures that could be used to facilitate the planning or execution of a terrorist attack;
J. information concerning information technology systems, the publication of which would reveal specific vulnerabilities that compromise or allow unlawful access to such systems; provided that this subsection shall not be used to restrict requests for:
(1) records stored or transmitted using information technology systems;
(2) internal and external audits of information technology systems, except for those portions that would reveal ongoing vulnerabilities that compromise or allow unlawful access to such systems; or
(3) information to authenticate or validate records received pursuant to a request fulfilled pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act;
K. submissions in response to a competitive grant, land lease or scholarship and related scoring materials and evaluation reports until finalists are publicly named or the award is announced; and
L. as otherwise provided by law.
History:
1941 Comp., § 13-501, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 130, § 1; 1953 Comp., § 71-5-1; Laws 1973, ch. 271, § 1; 1981, ch. 47, § 3; 1993, ch. 260, § 1; 1998 (1st S.S.), ch. 3, § 1; 1999, ch. 158, § 1; 2003, ch. 288, § 1; 2005, ch. 126, § 1; 2011, ch. 134, § 2; 2019, ch. 27, § 1; 2023, ch. 67, § 2.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references.
— For use of police reports for commercial solicitation,
see
14-2A-1 NMSA 1978.
For provisions of Arrest Record Information Act,
see
Chapter 29, Article 10 NMSA 1978.
The 2023 amendment,
effective March 30, 2023, removed provisions related to law enforcement records to conform with the enactment of § 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978, excepted from disclosure of information concerning information technology systems, submissions to grant programs, land leases and scholarship programs; in Subsection D, after "portions of law enforcement records", deleted "that reveal" and added "as provided in Section 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978", deleted Paragraphs D(1) and D(2); redesignated former Subsection G as Subsection I; and added new Subsections J and K and redesignated former Subsection H as Subsection L.
The 2019 amendment,
effective June 14, 2019, provided an exception to the right to inspect public records for portions of law enforcement records that contain identifying information of certain victims of and witnesses to certain crimes; deleted subsection designation "A", deleted Subsection B, and redesignated former Paragraphs A(1) through A(8) as Subsections A through H, respectively; in Subsection D, added "portions of", added paragraph designations "(1)" and "(2)", in Paragraph D(1), after "methods", added "or", in Paragraph D(2), added "before charges are filed, names, address, contact information, or protected personal identifier information as defined in this Act of", after "individuals", added "who are", added new subparagraph designation "(a)", and Subparagraph D(2)(b); and after Paragraph D(2)(b), after "listed in this", deleted "paragraph" and added the remainder of the paragraph.
The 2011 amendment,
effective July 1, 2011, permitted the inspection of records containing identity or identifying information about an applicant or nominee for president of a public institution of higher learning and the inspection of discharge papers of veterans, and authorized a public body to redact protected personal identifier information before inspection.
The 2005 amendment,
effective July 1, 2005, added Subsection A(9) through (11) to provide exceptions to the right to inspect public records for certain discharge papers of military veterans.
The 2003 amendment,
effective July 1, 2003, inserted Paragraph A(8) and redesignated former Paragraph A(8) as Paragraph A(9).
The 1999 amendment,
effective April 5, 1999, in Subsection A added Paragraph (6) and redesignated the remaining paragraphs accordingly.
The 1998 amendment,
effective May 11, 1998, designated the former introductory paragraph as Subsection A, redesignated the existing paragraphs thereunder as Paragraphs A(1)-(5) and (7), and added Paragraph A(6), making minor stylistic changes; and added Subsection B.
The 1993 amendment,
effective June 18, 1993, substituted "person" for "citizen of this state" in the introductory language, substituted "institution" for "institutions" in Subsection A, added Subsection D, and redesignated former Subsections D and E as Subsections E and F.
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
Retroactive application of the Supreme Court decision in Republication Party v. Taxation & Revenue.
— Where, in 2007, plaintiff requested copies of a draft letter and emails relating to a federal program managed by defendant and defendant denied plaintiff's request on the grounds that the documents were protected by the deliberative process privilege and the rule of reason, the principles of Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853 applied retroactively to plaintiff's request because the supreme court did not announce a new rule regarding the deliberative process privilege, and although the supreme court overruled cases in which the rule of reason was endorsed, defendant did not rely on the precedent overruled by the supreme court when it denied plaintiff's request, retroactive application of the decision would further the purposes of the Inspection of Public Records Act, and retroactive application of the decision would not result in any inequity.
Edenburn v. N.M. Dep't of Health
, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.
Rule of reason.
— The rule of reason is a non-statutory exception to disclosure which provides a mechanism for addressing claims of confidentiality that have not been specifically addressed by the legislature. The rule of reason applies only to public records that do not fall into one of the statutory exceptions to disclosure and requires the custodian of public records to justify why the records sought to be inspected should not be furnished and the district court to balance the fundamental right of all citizens to have reasonable access to public records against countervailing public policy considerations which favor confidentiality and nondisclosure.
City of Farmington v. The Daily Times
, 2009-NMCA-057, 146 N.M. 349, 210 P.3d 246.
Inspection of Public Records Act is statutory scheme of general application.
Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273.
Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer.
— Citizen complaints concerning the on-duty conduct of a law enforcement officer are public records available to the public for inspection.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Right of citizen to inspect.
— A citizen has a fundamental right to have access to public records. The citizen's right to know is the rule, and secrecy is the exception. Where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.
State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid
, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.
Nondisclosure of names of terminated employees.
— Where the reason for termination of public employees is a matter of public knowledge before the individuals are terminated, the privacy of the disciplinary proceeding can only be protected by upholding the administrative decision not to disclose the names of the individuals affected.
State ex rel. Barber v. McCotter
, 1987-NMSC-046, 106 N.M. 1, 738 P.2d 119.
Defendant failed to meet burden of establishing privilege in request for public records action.
— In an underlying enforcement action under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act, 14-2-1 to -12 NMSA 1978, where plaintiffs made a combined seven written requests of the Albuquerque public schools (APS) to inspect documents referencing complaints or allegations of misconduct regarding the former superintendent of APS, the district court did not err in ordering the non-party appellant to answer plaintiffs' deposition questions, because appellant failed to identify any privilege, either adopted by the New Mexico supreme court or recognized under the New Mexico constitution, on which to base her argument that communications regarding "limited personnel matters" that occur during a closed public meeting are immune from discovery, and failed to meet her burden of establishing the essential elements necessary to prove the applicability of the attorney-client privilege, based on a claimed common interest, to her communications with APS attorneys.
Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Educ.
, 2019-NMCA-012,
cert. granted
.
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.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is not an exception to disclosure of public records.
— Where the state ethics commission (commission) sent a public records request 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 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), NMSA 1978, § 10-16F-1 to -6, operates as an exception to disclosure through the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, because the commission may obtain the requested records through a subpoena, the department erred in denying the commission's public records request, because the commission's ability to obtain pubic records through a subpoena does not mean that it is unable to seek the same records through IPRA, and nothing in the ECPA's text suggests that the legislature intended the statute to operate as an exception to disclosure through IPRA.
Public Records Requests Made by the State Ethics Comm'n
(10/27/21), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2021-12.
II. RECORDS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION.
Property valuation records.
— The valuation records statute, § 7-38-19, expressly recognizes that valuation records are public records except to the extent that they contain information regarding income, certain expenses, profits and losses relating to the property or owner, or diagrams of the interior arrangements of buildings or alarm, electrical, or plumbing systems; the presence of any of the above information on a property card does not render the entire card excepted from being a public record, since such a literal reading of the statute is unreasonable and would effect a nullification of the statutes providing that valuation records are, in general, public.
Gordon v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor
, 2001-NMCA-044, 130 N.M. 573, 28 P.3d 1114.
Voter registration records.
— A county chairman of a political party is entitled to have the working master record of the voter registration records of the county copied, or duplicated at his expense under the county clerk's supervision, as these records are public records.
Ortiz v. Jaramillo
, 1971-NMSC-041, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500.
Military and arrest records of state employees.
— Supreme court declined to hold that all information in employment records of state university regarding military discharges or arrest records should be exempted from disclosure.
State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid
, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.
III. EXCEPTIONS.
A. IN GENERAL.
Rule of reason has no application to the inspection of public records.
— The rule of reason, whereby courts determine whether records not specifically exempted by the Inspection of Public Records Act, Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., nevertheless should be withheld from the requestor on the grounds that disclosure would not be in the public interest, has no application to the inspection of public records under the act. Courts should restrict their analysis to whether disclosure under the act may be withheld because of a specific exception contained within the act, or statutory or regulatory exceptions, or privileges adopted by the supreme court or grounded in the constitution.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853,
overruling
City of Farmington v. The Daily Times
, 2009-NMCA-057, 146 N.M. 349, 210 P.3d 246 and
Board of Comm'rs of Dona Ana Cnty. v. Las Cruces Sun-News
, 2003-NMCA-102, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.
The deliberative process privilege does not exist under New Mexico law.
— The common law deliberative process privilege, which applies to decision making of executive officials generally and which only covers material that is predecisional and deliberative, does not exist under New Mexico law.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853,
rev'g
2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444 and disavowing
State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. First Judicial Dist. Court
, 1981-NMSC-053, 96 N.M. 254, 629 P.2d 330.
Executive privilege.
— The executive privilege in New Mexico, which derives from the constitution and which is reserved to and can be invoked only by the governor, extends only to documents that are communicative in nature, that are made to and from individuals in very close organizational and functional proximity to the governor, and that relate to decisions made by the governor in the performance of the governor's constitutionally-mandated duties.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853.
Application of the executive privilege to the inspection of public records.
— Courts considering the application of the executive privilege to a request for the inspection of public records under the Inspection of Public Records Act, Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., must independently determine whether the documents at issue are in fact covered by the privilege and whether the privilege has been invoked by the governor, to whom the privilege is reserved. Courts are not required to balance the competing needs of the executive and the party seeking disclosure. Where appropriate, courts should conduct an in camera view of the documents at issue as part of their evaluation of the privilege.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853.
Executive privilege did not apply to drivers' license records.
— Where petitioners requested public documents from the motor vehicle division relating to the issuance of drivers' licenses to foreign nationals and to an audit of the license program ordered by the governor; the motor vehicle division redacted information pursuant to executive privilege; the redacted documents included communications regarding New Mexico's negotiations with the Mexican government regarding access to identity documents and discussions related to implementing the audit of the driver's license program; the documents at issue were principally internal emails between staff of the motor vehicle division, not communications with the governor or the governor's immediate staff; and the motor vehicle division, not the governor, asserted the executive privilege; the documents at issue did not qualify for the executive privilege.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853,
rev'g
2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444.
Driver's license records.
— Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information about driver's licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the United States, defendants properly redacted individual tax identification numbers and the names, driver's license numbers, and addresses of drivers who obtained their license with proof of identification other than a social security number, because the redacted information was personal information which defendants were prohibited from disclosing by 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(1) and by Section 66-2-7.1 NMSA 1978.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Executive privilege
is a non-statutory exception to disclosure which requires the court to balance the fundamental right of all citizens to have reasonable access to public records against countervailing public policy considerations which favor confidentiality and nondisclosure.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Executive privilege.
— Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information about driver's licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the United States, defendants were authorized by the executive privilege exception to redact communications between the governor's office and the defendants regarding New Mexico's negotiations with the Mexican government regarding driver's identification confirmation, discussions about drivers who applied for licenses using documents whose authenticity the motor vehicle division had not been able to confirm, and discussions related to an audit to determine whether licenses had been issued to individuals who submitted documents of questionable authenticity.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Attorney-client privilege.
— Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information about driver's licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the United States, defendants were authorized by the attorney-client privilege exception to redact communications between the general counsel for the governor's office and executive branch personnel about communications with the Mexican government regarding the issuance of driver's licenses in New Mexico, an audit of drivers who obtained licenses with individual tax identification numbers, communications with drivers whose documentation could not be verified, and legal analysis of the process for obtaining a driver's license.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Attorney-client privilege exemption.
— Where plaintiff sued the board of commissioners for Sandoval county and the Sandoval county records custodian, claiming that defendants violated IPRA by denying her the opportunity to inspect certain records, including emails sent between the county's public information officer and the county manager concerning IPRA lawsuits involving the county and the county's processing of IPRA requests, and where, after an in camera review of three emails that were not produced by the county, the district court issued its order, determining that all three emails were protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege, the district court erred in exempting the first email, because although the email contained the designation "Attorney-Client Privileged" the email was not made for the purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services, but rather to apprise its recipients of a decision which the public information officer had previously made concerning an IPRA request, but the district court did not err in exempting the second and third emails which summarized conversations between the public information officer and attorneys for the county, and the general rule is that a communication relaying privileged legal advice between representatives of an organization client who can act on that advice qualifies as being made for the purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services to that client.
Tawater v. Board of Comm'rs
, 2023-NMCA-052.
Section 6-5A-1(D) NMSA 1978 does not serve as a statutory exemption to the Inspection of Public Records Act.
— In consolidated appeals arising from two lawsuits brought by plaintiff against defendants, the university of New Mexico foundation, the university of New Mexico lobo club, and the board of regents of the university of New Mexico, under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), §§ 14-2-1 through 14-2-12 NMSA 1978, seeking donor lists and records and communications related to a naming agreement between the university of New Mexico and a restaurant chain that obtained naming rights to a major sporting facility operated by the university, and where defendants argued that these records were exempt from disclosure under Section 6-5A-1 NMSA 1978 and that the records were not public records under IPRA, the district court did not err in ruling that § 6-5A-1(D) did not function as an exemption to IPRA, because a plain reading of § 6-5A-1 establishes that the legislature expressly designated organizations' annual audits as public records, but also made clear that it was not doing the same for other records. Thus, while an organization's records might be public records subject to inspection, § 6-5A-1 does not specifically exempt any records from disclosure.
Libit v. UNM Lobo Club
, 2022-NMCA-043, cert. granted.
B. PARTICULAR RECORDS EXCEPTED.
Draft documents are public documents that are subject to public inspection.
Edenburn v. N.M. Dep't of Health
, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.
Draft letter and emails.
— Where plaintiff requested a copy of a draft letter and a string of emails that related to a federal program managed by defendant; defendant denied plaintiff the right to inspect the emails on the ground that the emails were protected by the deliberative process privilege because they were deliberative communications between defendant's employees before any final determinations were made; and defendant denied plaintiff the right to inspect the draft letter on the grounds that the draft letter, as a draft document, was not subject to public records status and was exempt from disclosure by the rule of reason and the same principles upon which the deliberative process privilege is grounded, the draft letter and the emails were subject to disclosure because neither the deliberative process privilege nor the rule of reason are recognized in New Mexico and there was no specific statutory, regulatory, court adopted privilege, or constitutional provision that exempts draft documents from inspection.
Edenburn v. N.M. Dep't of Health
, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.
The contents of an officeholder's personal election campaign Facebook page are not public records of a public body.
— In a superintending control proceeding arising from an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) action filed in the fifth judicial district court (district court), where the real party in interest, a party to a civil case in the first judicial district court, sought to inspect the contents of a personal election Facebook page maintained by a first judicial district court judge (judge), the district court did not err in determining that the contents of the judge's personal election campaign Facebook page were not public records of a public body subject to IPRA disclosure requirements, because IPRA is aimed at the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees, and there was no evidence that the judge's personal election campaign or its Facebook site were acting on behalf of the first judicial district court or any other public body, that any government funding was involved in maintenance of the Facebook site or any of its activities, or that the judge conducted public business through the site.
Pacheco v. Hudson
, 2018-NMSC-022.
Judicial deliberation privilege.
— There exists a judicial deliberation privilege protecting the confidentiality of draft judicial orders and other internal judicial-making processes between judges and between judges and the court's staff made in the course of the performance of their judicial duties and related to official court business.
Pacheco v. Hudson
, 2018-NMSC-022.
In a superintending control proceeding arising from an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) action filed in the fifth judicial district court (district court), where the real party in interest, a party to a civil case in the first judicial district court, sought to inspect email communications related to a draft copy of a preliminary injunction order that a judge in the first judicial district court had been preparing for issuance in the underlying civil case, email exchanges between the judge and court staff, as well as an email exchange between the judge and the supreme court law librarian, were protected by the judicial deliberation privilege, because the email exchanges reflected the judge's internal judicial decision-making processes.
Pacheco v. Hudson
, 2018-NMSC-022.
Child abuse and neglect proceedings.
— Section 32A-4-33 NMSA 1978 of the Children's Code exempts the child's records in a civil abuse and neglect proceeding from the public's right to inspect public records authorized by Section 14-2-1(F) NMSA 1978 (1993) (now 14-2-1(A)(12) NMSA 1978).
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. George F.
, 1998-NMCA-119, 125 N.M. 597, 964 P.2d 158.
Criminal investigation records.
— The legislature has expressed its intent to protect from disclosure police investigatory materials in an on-going criminal investigation through the Inspection of Public Records Act (Section 14-2-1(A)(4) NMSA 1978).
Estate of Romero v. City of Santa Fe
, 2006-NMSC-028, 139 N.M. 671, 137 P.3d 611.
There is not a blanket exception from inspection for law enforcement records relating to an ongoing criminal investigation.
— Where plaintiff sent a written request to the department of public safety (DPS) pursuant to IPRA for various records relating to the shooting death of his brother, and where DPS produced a primary incident report, the personnel records of one of the officers involved, and one subpoena, but denied production of all other pertinent records in its possession, claiming that the release of the requested information posed a demonstrable and serious threat to an ongoing criminal investigation and that the FBI asked DPS to withhold the records in order to maintain the integrity of its investigation, the district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in granting DPS's motion for summary judgment, because this section does not create a blanket exception from inspection of law enforcement records relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and DPS did not present evidence that any specific records that it refused to produce revealed confidential sources, methods, information or individuals accused but not charged with a crime, nor did DPS present any evidence that it reviewed the requested records to separate the exempt from nonexempt information, or that it provided any nonexempt information existing within records containing exempt information.
Jones v. N.M. Dep't of Public Safety
, 2020-NMSC-013,
rev'g
No. A-1-CA-35120, mem. op. (May 10, 2018) (non-precedential).
Property valuation records.
— The valuation records statute, Section 7-38-19 NMSA 1978, expressly recognizes that valuation records are public records except to the extent that they contain information regarding income, certain expenses, profits and losses relating to the property or owner, or diagrams of the interior arrangements of buildings or alarm, electrical, or plumbing systems; the presence of any of the above information on a property card does not render the entire card excepted from being a public record, since such a literal reading of the statute is unreasonable and would effect a nullification of the statutes providing that valuation records are, in general, public.
Gordon v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor
, 2001-NMCA-044, 130 N.M. 573, 28 P.3d 1114.
Driver's license records.
— Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information about drivers' licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the United States, defendants properly redacted individual tax identification numbers and the names, drivers' license numbers, and addresses of drivers who obtained their license with proof of identification other than a social security number, because the redacted information was personal information which defendants were prohibited from disclosing by 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(1) and by Section 66-2-7.1 NMSA 1978.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Computerized database of public record.
— There is no intent on the part of the legislature with respect to Section 14-3-15.1 C NMSA 1978 that that statute and the policy underlying it, and not the Inspection of Public Records Act and the policies underlying it, apply to a copy of a medium containing a computerized database of a public record.
Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273.
Letters of reference.
— A letter of reference, as that term is used in Paragraph (2) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978, is generally considered to be a statement of support for an applicant that assists a future employer or licensor in evaluation of an applicant for a job, license, or permit; is typically solicited either by a prospective applicant or the prospective employer; and addresses the prospective applicant's general qualifications for employment or licensing.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer.
— Citizen complaints concerning the on-duty conduct of a law enforcement officer are not letters of reference as that term is used in Paragraph (2) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Records in personnel files.
— The location of a record in a personnel file is not dispositive of whether the exception in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978 applies. The critical factor is the nature of the document itself.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Matters of opinion in personnel files.
— Matters of opinion in personnel files, as that term is used in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978, constitute personnel information regarding the employer/employee relationship, such as internal evaluations; disciplinary reports or documentation; promotion, demotion or termination information; or performance evaluations.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Exception for letters and memoranda apply to entire document.
— Where plaintiff filed a complaint in district court seeking a writ of mandamus or a court order compelling the livestock board (board) to disclose an investigative report produced by an outside firm retained by the board to investigate allegations that a particular board inspector had committed timesheet fraud by billing the board for his time while working at a second job, and where plaintiff claimed that the board's custodian of records was required to separate "matters of fact" from "matters of opinion" in the report and produce the matters of fact for inspection, the district court did not err in granting the board's motion for summary judgment, because the plain language of the exemption in NMSA 1978, 14-2-1(C) applies to letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files in their entirety, and NMSA 1978, 14-2-9(A), by its plain language, does not require a custodian of records to separate exempt from nonexempt information when an exemption applies to a document as a whole, which § 14-2-1(C) does.
Henry v. Gauman
, 2023-NMCA-078, cert. denied.
Documents that included privileged attorney-client communications and report made for the purpose of determining whether to take disciplinary action against an employee were exempt from disclosure.
— Where plaintiff, a citizen journalist and advocate, whose work focuses on estray and wild horses, matters within the jurisdiction of the livestock board (board), sought disclosure of certain records related to wild horses that included communications between the board's general counsel, attorneys in the attorney general's office and certain board staff members and the disclosure of records pertaining to a formal investigation of the deputy board director and the human resources director for allegedly creating a hostile work environment and misappropriating funds, and where the district court held that none of the four documents at issue were exempt and ordered them disclosed, the district court erred in finding that none of the documents were exempt from disclosure, because three of the documents were confidential communications between lawyers representing the board made for the purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services to the board and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 14-2-1(G), and the fourth document, a report of an investigation into alleged misconduct by an employee of the board prepared for the purpose of determining whether to take disciplinary action against that employee, fell within the matters of opinion in personnel files exemption under § 14-2-1(C).
Henry v. N.M. Livestock Bd
., 2023-NMCA-082, cert. denied.
Internal affairs investigation documents fell within "letters or memoranda which are matters of opinion in personnel files" exception.
— Where petitioner made an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to the City of Carlsbad, in relevant part, for all internal affairs reports and investigative files, concerning as targets, or as witnesses, fourteen city police officers identified by name, all communication records relating to the processing and completion of the internal affairs investigation report concerning petitioner, and city notices to city police officers of certain types of discipline from 2015 through the date of the request, and where the city identified 3,777 pages of documents responsive to petitioner's request, but withheld 3,271 pages as exempt under 14-2-1(C) NMSA 1978, and where the district court, after argument and independently examining the documents
in camera
, found that the documents were created for the purpose of conducting internal disciplinary proceedings and determined that the documents were properly withheld and exempt pursuant to 14-2-1(C) NMSA 1978, the district court did not err in finding that the documents were exempt, because internal affairs investigation documents that concern employee infractions or disciplinary action are exempt from disclosure under IPRA. When a law enforcement officer's employer performs an internal affairs investigation to investigate violations of the officer's terms of employment for the purpose of determining whether infractions occurred and whether disciplinary action should be taken, documents and reports prepared in furtherance of the investigation fall squarely within the "letters and memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files" exemption.
Hall v. City of Carlsbad
, 2023-NMCA-042.
Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer.
— Citizen complaints regarding a law enforcement officer's conduct while performing the officer's duties as a public official are not the type of opinion material this is excluded from public inspection by Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety
, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.
Records of non-mandated university employment office.
— Student complaints against man who utilized the services of university employment office to obtain domestic help by means of job postings were not "public records," since there was no legal mandate for the operation of the employment office, nor was there an obligation of the office to make or keep records of the complaints.
Spadaro v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents
, 1988-NMSC-064, 107 N.M. 402, 759 P.2d 189.
Personnel records of state university employees pertaining to illness may be confidential.
— Personnel records of employees of state university which pertain to illness, injury, disability, inability to perform a job task and sick leave are considered confidential under this section and not subject to release to the public, except by the consent or waiver of the particular employee.
State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid
, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.
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.
Meaning of "as otherwise provided by law".
— The exception in Subsection F of this section incorporates an administrative regulation that effectuates the legislature's intent in enacting the Public Employee Bargaining Act [now repealed]; any benefit to the public from inspecting the representation petition filed under that act would be significantly outweighed by a public employee's privacy interest.
City of Las Cruces v. Public Employee Labor Relations Bd.
, 1996-NMSC-024, 121 N.M. 688, 917 P.2d 451.
Exception to public policy.
— The legislature, in enacting 14-3-15.1 C NMSA 1978, intended to permit state agencies to specifically limit public use of a certain type of record, thereby creating an exception to the general public policy underlying the Inspection of Public Records Act.
Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273.
Jury lists.
— A jury list is a public record and the media are entitled to inspect and publish it.
State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman
, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.
Common-law concept.
— The right of the public to inspect records which are in custody of a public officer is a common-law concept and exists even without statute. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5933.
Public's right to inspection is not absolute.
1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.
Dissemination of information not necessarily included.
— The right to inspect public records does not necessarily include the right to disseminate the information contained in those records. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.
Limited privacy of accused.
— Section 29-10-4 NMSA 1978 protects the confidentiality of information concerning the identity of a person who has been accused, but not charged, with a crime only if that information has been collected in connection with an investigation of, or otherwise relates to, another person who has been charged with committing a crime. However, information in other records which identifies a person accused but not charged with or arrested for a crime may be protected from public disclosure under this section. Finally, even if it would otherwise be protected under either statute, information about a person accused but not charged with a crime is open to public inspection if it is contained in a document listed in 29-10-7 NMSA 1978. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-02.
Identity of individuals arrested or charged with crime not protected.
— Neither the Arrest Record Information Act [27-10-1 NMSA 1978] nor the Inspection of Public Records Act [14-2-4 NMSA 1978] authorizes a law enforcement agency to protect the identity of persons who have been arrested or charged with a crime. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-02.
No defense to invasion of privacy action.
— The right of inspection is no defense to an action for invasion of privacy based upon publication of matters which an individual has the right to keep private. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.
Criterion for determining what information is public record
is whether the information is required by law to be kept or is necessarily kept in the discharge of a duty imposed by law. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.
Provisions of section contemplate some exception
to the Public Records Act, 14-3-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-19.
Court opinions subject to inspection or copying.
— The supreme court and the court of appeals are required to make available their current and past opinions to the public for inspection or for copying. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-14.
All records which do not deal with physical or mental examinations or medical treatment of patients
are public records. This type of record would include payrolls, receipts and disbursements, etc. Any record which might fairly be called a record of examination of a patient or a record of medical treatment of a patient of any institution is not a public record and need not be submitted to public scrutiny. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-155.
Data compiled from case histories.
— Case histories furnished by attending physicians on individual patients from which mortality data is to be taken are confidential records, but the data compiled from such case histories where the individual identity is lost are not confidential. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-158.
Workers' compensation claim files.
— The workers' compensation division maintains workers' compensation claim files in the course of its statutory function of adjudicating claims filed by workers, which makes them public records within the meaning of state freedom of information laws. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. 88-16.
Medical records introduced into evidence.
— To the extent any medical records that otherwise are exempt from disclosure are introduced into evidence during the course of a formal workers' compensation hearing which is open to the public, such records lose their exempt status and may be inspected by the public. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-16.
Records of state penitentiary
are public records and should be made available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of this section. 1951 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 51-5342.
Public school records.
— Business records, expenditures, daily attendance records and permanent records of an individual student's grades kept by the public schools are public records. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.
Public school records.
— Any citizen of this state has a right to examine the public records of a school district when such records have been made a part of central records of such school district. This right to inspection is spelled out by statute, and the legislature has specified that the denial of such right of access is punishable as a misdemeanor. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.
Instructional material used in public school.
— Local school boards have no authority to prohibit citizens of the state from inspecting instructional material used in a public school within the district. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-37.
Immunization records of school children
are available to the public. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-158.
Names and addresses of teachers
employed in New Mexico school systems which are contained in lists compiled by the department of education are public records. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.
Employee's file held by state personnel office.
— Personnel actions, supervisor's ratings, arrest records, letters of commendation or condemnation from the employing agency, present employment history, the job application itself and educational history in an employee's file held by the state personnel office is a matter of public record. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.
Salary information pertaining to state employee
which is possessed by the state personnel office is a matter of public record, since the state personnel director is required by law to establish and maintain a roster for all state employees showing the employee's pay rate, 10-9-12 NMSA 1978. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.
Job applicant's test score and position on eligibility list
under 10-9-13 NMSA 1978, possessed by the state personnel office, is a public record. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.
Minutes of board of bar examiners
meet the requirements of the definition of public records, and, as such, are required under the common law adopted by this state and also by this section, as amended, to be public records and, as such, are subject to the inspection of the public. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5933.
Interstate stream commission.
— Under the provisions of this section, any public records reflecting the work or action of the interstate stream commission are subject to public inspection. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 62-80.
County fair board.
— Since the legislature has specifically granted counties the authority to conduct county fairs, a county fair board is an arm of the county and its records are county records which are subject to inspection as provided in this section and former 14-2-2 NMSA 1978. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-109.
Data of personal nature used in educating pupils not subject.
— Such records or memoranda as may be kept by a teacher, or other school official, for informational purposes on individual students, and which may contain data of a personal nature for use in assisting teachers or school personnel in educating pupils, do not fall within the classification of public records entitled to be scrutinized by the public. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.
Temporary or partial grades or records
kept by individual teachers are not public records. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.
Portions of applicant's file may be classified as confidential by state personnel board.
— Not all records kept by a public officer are public records. The state personnel board has, within statutory limits, a limited and restricted right to classify certain portions of an applicant's file as confidential. Any portion which would be made available to the state only on a confidential and restricted basis may be treated by the state personnel board as confidential. This right, however, should be narrowly and restrictively applied. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.
Personnel file.
— Under the rule-making authority of 10-9-10 and 10-9-13 NMSA 1978, the state personnel board has a limited and restricted right to classify as confidential certain portions of an individual's personnel file which would not otherwise be made available to the state unless on a confidential or restricted basis. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-19.
Medical history and employment history solicited from applicant's previous employer
for 10-9-13 NMSA 1978 are not public records. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.
Criminal complaints.
— Complaints filed in J. P. (now magistrate) court by district attorney and sheriff's office do not constitute public records when the person complained against has not been arrested and is not subject to public inspection. 1947 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47-5074.
Information obtained under Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code.
— A district court clerk may not release the information identified in 43-1-19A NMSA 1978, governing disclosure under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, without obtaining the consent of the person to whom that information pertains. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-75.
Human services department [health care authority department] records.
— Since other statutory provisions are made for inspection of records of the welfare department (now health care authority department), they are open for inspection only in accordance with 27-2-35. 1947 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47-5032.
Law reviews.
— For 1984-88 survey of New Mexico administrative law, 19 N.M.L. Rev. 575 (1990).
For survey of 1988-89 Administrative Law, see 21 N.M.L. Rev. 481 (1991).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.
— 37A Am. Jur. 2d Freedom of Information Acts § 1 et seq. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 204; 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records and Recording Laws §§ 12 to 31.
Enforceability by mandamus of right to inspect public records, 60 A.L.R. 1356, 169 A.L.R. 653.
Right to inspect motor vehicle records, 84 A.L.R.2d 1261.
Confidentiality of records as to recipients of public welfare, 54 A.L.R.3d 768.
Payroll records of individual government employees as subject to disclosure to public, 100 A.L.R.3d 699.
Validity, construction, and effect of state laws requiring public officials to protect confidentiality of income tax returns or information, 1 A.L.R.4th 959.
What constitutes preliminary drafts or notes provided by or for state or local governmental agency, or intra-agency memorandums, exempt from disclosure or inspection under state freedom of information act, 26 A.L.R.4th 639.
Patient's right to disclosure of his or her own medical records under state freedom of information act, 26 A.L.R.4th 701.
What are "records" of agency which must be made available under state freedom of information act, 27 A.L.R.4th 680.
What constitutes an agency subject to application of state freedom of information act, 27 A.L.R.4th 742.
What constitutes "trade secrets" exempt from disclosure under state freedom of information act, 27 A.L.R.4th 773.
What constitutes legitimate research justifying inspection of state or local public records not open to inspection by general public, 40 A.L.R.4th 333.
State freedom of information act requests: right to receive information in particular medium or format, 86 A.L.R.4th 786.
Use of Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552) as substitute for, or as means of, supplementing discovery procedures available to litigants in federal civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings, 57 A.L.R. Fed. 903.
What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of Information Act exemption permitting nondisclosure of identity of confidential source and, in specified instances, of confidential information furnished only by confidential source (5 USCS § 552(b)(7)(D)), 59 A.L.R. Fed. 550.
Waiver by federal government agency as affecting agency's right to claim exemption from disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552(b)), 67 A.L.R. Fed. 595.
When are government records "similar files" exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act provision (5 USCS § 552(b)(6)) exempting certain personnel, medical, and "similar" files, 106 A.L.R. Fed. 94.
What constitutes "final opinion" or "order" of federal administrative agency required to be made available for public inspection and copying within meaning of 5 USCS § 552(a)(2)(A), 114 A.L.R. Fed. 287.
What constitutes "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from person and privileged or confidential," exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552 (b)(4)) (FOIA), 139 A.L.R. Fed. 225.
What are "records" of agency which must be made available under Freedom of Information Act (5 USCA § 552(a)(3)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 571.
Actions brought under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 522 et seq. - supreme court cases, 167 A.L.R. Fed. 545.
What are interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 168 A.L.R. Fed. 143.
What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of Information Act exemption permitting nondisclosure of confidential source and, in some instances, of information furnished by confidential source (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 171 A.L.R. Fed. 193.
76 C.J.S. Records § 48 et seq.