Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins
| Decision Date | 15 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-91-0254-PR,CV-91-0254-PR |
| Citation | 852 P.2d 1194,175 Ariz. 11 |
| Parties | , 21 Media L. Rep. 1411 COX ARIZONA PUBLICATIONS, INC., an Arizona corporation, dba The Tribune, and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., an Arizona corporation dba The Arizona Republic, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Thomas E. COLLINS, Maricopa County Attorney, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. challenge a decision of the court of appeals vacating an award of attorneys' fees and costs against former Maricopa County Attorney Tom Collins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.Const. art. 6, § 5(3), and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. We reverse and reinstate the award.
On April 17, 1987, Phoenix Police Chief Ruben Ortega and Maricopa County Attorney Tom Collins held a press conference to announce grand jury indictments of several then-current and former members of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, as well as other individuals. The indictments arose out of an investigation of illegal drugs and gambling.
That same day, a reporter for The Mesa Tribune made a written request to the Phoenix police department for access to its investigative reports. Three days later, an Arizona Republic reporter made a similar request. In response, the police began to review and edit the documents for release to the press.
On April 22, the county attorney's office served the police department with a subpoena duces tecum, ordering the surrender of the investigative reports. The department complied by delivering the original and all existing photocopies of the documents to the county attorney's office. It then denied the reporters' requests on the ground that it no longer possessed any reports.
In letters dated May 14 and 18, the reporters filed requests with Collins to examine the documents pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq. Collins refused.
On May 20, the newspapers filed a special action in superior court, requesting that Collins and Ortega be ordered to release the documents. In a motion to dismiss, those officials argued that a "gag order" entered by Judge Michael Ryan in the related criminal cases precluded them from complying with the newspapers' requests. That order prohibited extrajudicial "statements or releases concerning the merits of the charges, motions, evidence or arguments to be adduced by either side, or trial tactics or strategy."
The newspapers were granted leave to seek modification or clarification of Judge Ryan's order. On June 24, Judge Ryan declined modification but ruled that the order was not intended to interfere with the special action. He further indicated that Collins and Ortega could not use his order "as a shield to hide behind" in the special action.
On September 25, Judge Jeffrey Cates held a hearing on the special action. Neither Collins nor the State identified specific portions of the records that would justify withholding them from the press. Instead, they advanced arguments based on generalized claims of broad state interest. For example, they urged that releasing the documents would jeopardize fair trials for the defendants, hamper ongoing investigations and prosecutions, burden prosecutors to an unreasonable extent, inhibit future witnesses from speaking with police, violate grand jury secrecy laws, and impair the privacy and confidentiality interests of persons mentioned in the reports. Collins also cited E.R. 3.6(a) and 3.8(e), Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. Rule 42, 17A A.R.S., contending that his ethical obligation to refrain from making extrajudicial statements about pending cases prevented him from disclosing the documents.
When the court asked why the records were not being offered for an in camera inspection, the reply was that such a procedure would be too burdensome and it would be impossible to determine what should or should not be released before the case was closed.
On October 6, the court ordered Collins to release a copy of the report to the newspapers, stating:
The defendants have expressed only generalized concerns that disclosure of investigative reports would be detrimental to trials and investigations. No specific instances of harm in this case from disclosure of particular portions of this report were presented to the Court.
Defendants having failed to articulate specific circumstances of potential harm which would result from disclosure,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants forthwith provide a copy of the investigative report to plaintiffs' attorney.
Collins did not release the report. Rather, he sought review by special action in the court of appeals on October 19. Following oral argument, the court of appeals accepted jurisdiction and stayed proceedings in the superior court. On December 22, Collins filed a notice with the court of appeals that the criminal proceedings were completed. That court then declared the special action moot, vacated the stay, declined jurisdiction, and ordered the case returned to the superior court.
On January 15, 1988, Collins released a redacted version of the report to the newspapers and presented a complete copy to the court for an in camera inspection. In an order dated February 17, the judge denied the newspapers' requests for any of the redacted portions, or anything related to the grand jury proceedings. He concluded that the redacted records were sufficient to satisfy the newspapers' original demands.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B), the newspapers filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. That statute authorizes an award of attorneys' fees to a person wrongfully denied access to public records if the custodian of the records acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The court granted the motion and awarded the newspapers $30,000 in attorneys' fees, ruling that Collins' failure to produce a redacted version of the report until after the completion of the criminal proceedings was wrongful, arbitrary and capricious. The judge did not find bad faith. He noted, however, that "[h]ad there been an earlier in-camera review of the record, it is likely that this extensive litigation would have been avoided from that point forward."
Collins appealed and the court of appeals reversed. Cox Arizona Publications, Inc v. Collins, 169 Ariz. 189, 202, 818 P.2d 174, 187 (Ct.App.1991).
A court has discretion to award attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B) if two conditions are met. First, a person must have been wrongfully deprived of access to public records. "Wrongful" here means simply that the person denied the records was, in fact, entitled to them. Second, the court must find that the custodian of records acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Several standards of review apply here. Whether the denial of access to public records is wrongful is an issue of law which we review de novo. See Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 167 Ariz. 254, 257, 806 P.2d 348, 351 (1991). A trial court's finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa
...District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co., 191 Ariz. 297, 300, 955 P.2d 534 (1998) (quoting Cox Az. Pubs., Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 1194 (1993)). The potentially dangerous consequences that the interplay of these rules poses to permit applicants is obvio......
-
Hodai v. City of Tucson
...demonstrating how production of documents would be detrimental to the best interests of the state. Cox Ariz. Publ'ns, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1993). ¶ 8 Upon a determination that the documents at issue are clearly public records within the meaning of the stat......
-
Fann v. Kemp
...Sch. Dist. No. 48 v. KPNX Broad. Co. , 191 Ariz. 297, 300 ¶ 9, 955 P.2d 534, 537 (1998) (quoting Cox Ariz. Publ'ns, Inc. v. Collins , 175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 1194, 1197 (1993) ). Arizona statutes outline the maintenance of public records and the process for withholding privileged or conf......
-
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Dept.
...See id. The [government] has the burden of overcoming "the legal presumption favoring disclosure." Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1993) (citing Mitchell v. Superior Court, 142 Ariz. 332, 335, 690 P.2d 51, 54 (1984)). Scottsdale Unified Scho......
-
§ 4.8 OTHER STATUTES
...P.2d 1 (App. 1994)........................................................................ 4-8 Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 852 P.2d 1194 (1993)..................................... 4-21 Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 188 Ariz. 345, 935 P......
-
§ 4.7 PUBLIC RECORDS AND OPEN MEETINGS LITIGATION
...trial court has discretion to determine if a custodian of records acts in violation of this statute, Cox Arizona Publ'ns, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 852 P.2d 1194 (1993), trial court rulings under this statute have been reversed in a number of cases. In one case the court of appeals fou......
-
3.6:200 PERMISSIBLE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS
...propriety of counsel's communications with the media has been addressed in several Arizona cases. In Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 852 P.2d 1194 (1993), the Arizona Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's distribution of public records to reporters was not necessarily an......