State Records Committee Appeal Decision 2024-03

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

AARON DODD (for Britt Balkcom), Petitioner, v.

SALT LAKE CITY, Respondent,

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 24-03

By this appeal, Aaron Dodd (for Britt Balkcom) (“Petitioner”), requests records allegedly held by Salt Lake City (“Respondent”).

FACTS

On April 18, 2023, Petitioner was standing on a sidewalk located adjacent to the Salt Lake City Airport when he was detained by Salt Lake City police officers at the alleged direction of Airport Terminal Services because he appeared homeless. Petitioner alleges that Terminal Services sought to have petitioner charged with trespass and arrested. Police eventually released Petitioner.

On June 23, 2023, Petitioner submitted a request to Respondent for certain records pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Specifically, his request comprised the following:

1. I am hereby requesting all written or digital communications such as [sic] email messages, Microsoft Teams messages, text messages, and all other instant messages or any other type of written or digital communications used by Salt Lake City, both sent and received, for the period beginning July 1, 2022 [sic] through June 23, 2023 [sic] for the following individuals:
Marrisa (Brooke) Orgill
Jordan H. Tatton

2. I am also hereby requesting all written or digital communications such as [sic] email messages, Microsoft Teams messages, text messages, and all other instant messages or any other type of written or digital communications used by Salt Lake City, both sent and received, for the period beginning April 1, 2023 [sic] through June 23, 2023 [sic] for the following individuals:
Heidi Harward
Captain Stefhan Bennet

3. I am also hereby requesting all written or digital communications such as [sic] email messages, Microsoft Teams messages, text messages, and all other instant messages or any other type of written or digital communications used by Salt Lake City, both sent and received, for the period beginning April 1, 2023 [sic] through June 23, 2023 [sic] for the following individuals:
Officer Michael Martinez (N39)
Officer Walter Anaya (44V)

4. Additionally, I am requesting that Salt Lake City produce for the period beginning September 15, 2020 [sic] through June 23, 2023 [sic] any and all available statistical information, documents, reports, police reports, general offense hardcopies, papers, spreadsheets, airport trespass forms, or any other type of document that contains any information relating to any and all individuals that the City has stopped, questioned, warned, sought to remove, trespassed, arrested, or forcefully removed for ‘returning/Refusing [sic] to leave the Airport” Under [sic] the Airport’s Rules and Regulations, specifically Section 1.6, 3.16 or Rule 3.19.

(these requests are hereinafter referred to by number).

In the City-Wide Request, Petitioner sought “any and all available statistical information, documents, reports, police reports, general offense hardcopies, papers, spreadsheets, airport trespass forms, or any other type of document that contains any information relating to any and all individuals that the City has stopped, questioned, warned, sought to remove, trespassed, arrested, or forcefully removed for ‘returning/refusing to leave the Airport’ under the Airport’s Rules and Regulations, specifically Section 1.6, 3.16, or Rule 3.10” from “the entire City of Salt Lake City, not just the Airport Department” between September 15, 2020, through June 23, 2023.

In a response dated June 29, 2023, Respondent denied the request stating that the records request lacked the “reasonable specificity” that GRAMA requires all requestors to provide. Petitioner appealed the denial to the City’s chief administrative officer (“CAO”) on June 30, 2023, who ultimately upheld the denial.

Petitioner has now appealed to the State Records Committee (“Committee”), challenging the CAO’s decision. On January 4, 2023, the Committee held a hearing during which the parties were allowed to participate. At the hearing, the Committee considered the written materials, oral testimony, and oral arguments of the parties. After having carefully considered all evidence presented to the Committee, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.

ISSUES FOR REVIEW

The Committee is asked to determine whether Petitioner’s records request was reasonably specific.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

Under GRAMA, “a person has the right to inspect a public record free of charge, and the right to take a copy of a public record during normal working hours, . . .” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(1)(a). The governmental entity receiving a request for a public record “shall provide the person with a certified copy of a record if: . . . the person identifies the record with reasonable specificity; . . .” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(6)(b).

This Committee has touched upon the issue of what constitutes “reasonable specificity” in two prior rulings. First, in Richins v. Davis County, Decision and Order 2010-04, Utah State Records Committee (entered Feb. 18, 2010), we said,”[w]hen establishing whether a records request is ‘reasonably specific,’ the Committee reviews the petitioner’s written request and determines whether the request sufficiently describes records which will allow the governmental entity to reasonably find the records containing the requested information.” In that case, we ruled that specific names and titles of records were not necessary since the public may not know how government records are identified. We found that the respondent “knew or should have known from [the requestor’s] record description that he was requesting records regarding [the respondent’s] assessment and market value” of the requestor’s property. Id.

Later, in Redd v. Utah Attorney General’s Office, Decision and Order 2016-08, Utah State Records Committee (entered Feb 23, 2016), we defined “reasonable specificity” as “whether a reasonable person can understand what records are being requested by the requestor.”

From these prior rulings, we see that the Richins rule requires a reasonable description of the records and Redd requires that a reasonable person can understand what is being requested. These two rules are, in essence, the same. With this in mind, we turn to the request.

The request itself is quite broad. For requests 1 – 3, Petitioner stated that he was “requesting all written or digital communications such as,” followed by a list of a few examples. We are mindful that the term “such as” doesn’t create an exhaustive list of definite items. Rather, what follows is a short non-exhaustive list of possible examples. We agree with Respondent that because of this, the specificity in the request is left wanting, at least to a degree.

Because Petitioner did put forth a few examples of the communications he seeks, we find that the request is sufficiently specific as to those items; namely, emails, Microsoft Teams messages, and instant messages. Therefore, to requests 1 – 3, the request was specific enough on requesting those communication mediums.

As to request 4, we find similar concern with some of the broader items in the request. We find that the following items in the request are sufficiently specific and Respondent must provide responsive records: any policies, police reports related to individuals the Respondent has stopped, questioned, warned, sought to remove, trespassed, arrested, or forcefully removed for returning and/or refusing to leave the airport under the airport’s rules and regulations, specifically Section 1.6, 3.16, or 3.19.

Finally, we make clear that this Decision is in relation only to the reasonable specificity of the request. We don’t give any opinion on the substance of the request or Respondent’s handling of it. Therefore, we affirm Respondent’s right to assess a fee pursuant to statute and the rules outline in Graham v. Davis County Solid Waste Management and Energy Recovery Special Service Dist., 1999 UT App 136, 979 P.2d 363.

ORDER

THEREFORE, in accordance with this Decision, the appeal is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondent shall proceed to process Petitioner’s request on the items outlined above.

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 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 16 day of January 2024

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

Kenneth Williams
Chair, State Records Committee