State Records Committee Appeal Decision 2021-23

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

SAM STECKLOW, Petitioner, v.

SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 21-23

By this appeal, Petitioner, Sam Stecklow, seeks access to records held by Respondent, the Salt Lake City Police Department (“SLCPD”).

FACTS

In a letter dated October 5, 2020, Mr. Stecklow made a records request pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Mr. Stecklow requested digitally maintained records regarding closed SLCPD officer incidents involving the use of force, firearm discharges, traffic collisions, and police-involved shootings including those resulting in death. Mr. Stecklow stated in the letter that he was a journalist with the Invisible Institute, a nonprofit journalistic production company whose “mission is to enhance the capacity of citizens to hold public institutions accountable.”

On October 26, 2020, Candee Allred, GRAMA Coordinator for the SLCPD, stated that she was providing records since 2016 where the charges on which the disciplinary action was based were sustained and the time periods for administrative appeal had expired. Ms. Allred further stated that “[a]ll other Internal Affairs matters have been classified as private records” pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

In a letter dated October 26, 2020, Mr. Stecklow filed an appeal with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. Mr. Stecklow argued that the records of un-sustained cases should be released because of a compelling public interest in the records. In a letter dated November 9, 2020, Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Salt Lake City Mayor, denied Mr. Stecklow’s appeal. Ms. Otto found that GRAMA does not require the release of un-sustained discipline for police officers, and that release of data from the records would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

In a letter dated November 23, 2020, Mr. Stecklow appealed Respondent's GRAMA request denial to the State Records Committee ("Committee"). On April 29, 2020, the Committee held a hearing during which the parties were allowed to participate electronically and present their arguments. After carefully considering the parties' arguments and the evidence presented including an Amicus Brief from the City of South Jordan, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

1. GRAMA specifies that “all records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2). Records that are not public are designated as either “private,” “protected,” or “controlled.” See, Utah Code §§ 63G-2-302, -303, -304 and -305.

2. Records concerning a current or former employee of a governmental entity including performance evaluations and personal status information, are generally private if properly classified by a governmental entity but not including records that are public under Utah Code §§ 63G-2-301(2)(b) or -301(3)(o).” Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a). 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).

3. After having reviewed the records in camera and considering the arguments of the parties, the Committee finds that Respondent properly classified the requested records as protected records pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a). However, upon consideration and weighing the various interests and public policies pertinent to the classification and disclosure or nondisclosure, the Committee finds that the public interest favoring access is greater than the interest favoring restriction of access. See, Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b). The requested records involve an issue of great public interest: the use of force by police officers. Although the requested records were properly classified as private records pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a), the Committee believes it is in the public’s interest to release these records. However, in order to preserve the personal privacy of the individuals named in the records, Respondent may redact the names of individuals prior to releasing the records. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Category 1 & 2 records should be provided with redactions of individual names. Regarding the accident records, the Committee finds that they should remain private because the public interest is not greater than the public policy for keeping those records non-public.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Sam Stecklow, is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

A party to a proceeding before the Committee may seek judicial review in District Court of a Committee's Order by filing a petition for review of the Committee Order as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(14). A petition for judicial review of a Committee Order "shall be filed no later than 30 days" after the date of the Committee Order. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a). The petition for judicial review must be a complaint which is governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and include the Committee as a necessary party and contain the required information listed in Subsection -404(2). Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1) & (2). The court shall make its decision de novo but shall allow introduction of evidence presented to the Committee, determine all questions of fact and law without a jury, and decide the issue at the earliest practical opportunity. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(6). In order to protect a parties’ rights on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

PENALTY NOTICE

Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(c), if the Committee orders the governmental entity to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the government entity herein shall comply with the order of the Committee and shall: (1) Produce the record; and (2) File a notice of compliance with the Committee. If the governmental entity ordered to produce a record fails to file a notice of compliance or a notice of intent to appeal, the Committee may do either or both of the following: (1) Impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day of continuing noncompliance; or (2) Send written notice of the entity's noncompliance to the Governor. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(i)(B). In imposing a civil penalty, the Committee shall consider the gravity and circumstances of the violation, including whether the failure to comply was due to neglect or was willful or intentional. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(ii).

Entered this 10 day of May 2021

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

_____________________________________
KENNETH R. WILLIAMS
Chair, State Records Committee