×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Former Arizona County Manager's Personal Emails Not Subject To Disclosure
Former Pinal County (Arizona) Manager Stanley Griffis appealed a court ruling requiring the disclosure of 90 personal emails after his 2005 suspension for illegally purchasing firearms with County funds. One email's production was affirmed but the rest were reversed.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., filed an action to compel two months worth of emails from Griffis's county computer. They claimed that Griffis signed a disclosure acknowledging that all county equipment prepared messages were not subject to privacy. 730 emails were produced and Griffis appealed to prevent the release of 90 more.
After setting aside as not applicable the "public records" and "other matters" exceptions to disclosure under A.R.S. § 39 121, the Division Two Court of Appeals of Arizona held that public access does not apply to "private records...that have no relation to the agency's activities," which was the determined case with the 90 in question. It was rioted that previous holdings did not determine statutory disclosure by physical location or public employee status. One applicable email was ordered produced because it contained county related materials not personal in nature. See: Griffis v. Pinal County, 141 P.3d 780, 483 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20 (Ariz. App. 2006).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., filed an action to compel two months worth of emails from Griffis's county computer. They claimed that Griffis signed a disclosure acknowledging that all county equipment prepared messages were not subject to privacy. 730 emails were produced and Griffis appealed to prevent the release of 90 more.
After setting aside as not applicable the "public records" and "other matters" exceptions to disclosure under A.R.S. § 39 121, the Division Two Court of Appeals of Arizona held that public access does not apply to "private records...that have no relation to the agency's activities," which was the determined case with the 90 in question. It was rioted that previous holdings did not determine statutory disclosure by physical location or public employee status. One applicable email was ordered produced because it contained county related materials not personal in nature. See: Griffis v. Pinal County, 141 P.3d 780, 483 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20 (Ariz. App. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Griffis v. Pinal County
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 141 P3d 780, 483 Ariz Adv Rep 20 (AZ App. 2006) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |