Ortiz v. Jaramillo
| Decision Date | 05 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 9149,9149 |
| Citation | 82 N.M. 445,1971 NMSC 41,483 P.2d 500 |
| Parties | Rudy A. ORTIZ, Chairman, Bernalillo County Democratic Party, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lucy JARAMILLO, County Clerk of Bernalillo County, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Hartley, Olson & Baca, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.
Alexander F. Sceresse, Dist. Atty., William J. Bingham, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee.
Petitioner, the Democratic Party Chairman of Bernalillo County, sought mandamus in the District Court to compel respondent, the County Clerk, to furnish him a copy of the magnetic tape, which had been produced and was kept by her, in her official capacity, as the 'working master record' of the voter registration records of the county, pursuant to the Optional Registration Act, Chapter 3, Article 5, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 1, 1970). An alternative writ was issued, but after a hearing the court entered a judgment quashing the writ and dismissing the petition. Petitioner has appealed, and we reverse.
Petitioner sought a copy of the magnetic tape to facilitate his work as County Chairman of a political party. It is his contention that this tape constitutes a public record and he is entitled to have the same copied, or duplicated, at his expense under respondent's supervision, and the copy thereof delivered to him upon payment therefor.
The trial court referred to the tape both as a public record and as a county record, and respondent concedes it is a public record. See Chapter 71, Article 5, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 10, pt. 2, 1961) concerning inspection of public records. However, the trial court reached the following conclusions, although called findings of fact: (1) this was a unique kind of record, which could not be distributed indiscriminately; (2) it must remain always in the custody, under the supervision, and be protected by the County Clerk; (3) the intention of the Legislature in enacting the Optional Registration Act, supra, was that there should be only the 'working master record' and just one copy thereof, the 'duplicate master record,' unless otherwise authorized by the Board of Registration; (4) the further duplication and distribution of the tape would constitute an invasion of the privacy of each citizen who provides the information which appears on the tape and which is required for voter registration; and (5) a copy of the tape should not be made available to petitioner.
Respondent concedes the affidavits of registration which she keeps in her office, as required by Chapter 3, Article 4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 1, 1970), and particularly by the provisions of §§ 3--4--8, 3--4--9, 3--4--10 and 3--4--18, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 1, 1970), contain all the information found on the tape, and that petitioner, or anyone else acting lawfully and for a lawful purpose, may inspect the affidavits of registration. No contention is made that the right to inspect a public record does not include the right to make copies thereof. The right to inspect public records commonly carries with it the right to make copies thereof, subject, however, to reasonable restrictions and conditions imposed as to their use, reasonable regulations as to appropriate times when and places where they may be inspected and copied, and such reasonable supervision by the custodian thereof as may be necessary for their safety and as will secure equal opportunity for all to inspect and copy them. Whorton v. Gaspard, 239 Ark. 715, 393 S.W.2d 773 (1965); Direct Mail Service v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 296 Mass. 353, 5 N.E.2d 545 (1937); Annot., 84 A.L.R.2d 1261, § 5 at 1265 (1962); 45 Am.Jur., Records and Recording Laws, § 15 at 426 (1943).
We are unable to understand why the right to inspect public records should not carry with it the benefits arising from improved methods and techniques of recording and utilizing the information contained in these records, so long as proper safeguards are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State University
...be withheld simply because it is stored in magnetic tape form. Until today, that claim has been uniformly rejected. Ortiz v. Jaramillo, 82 N.M. 445, 447, 483 P.2d 500 (1971), ("We fail to understand how it can be said the inspection and copying of information contained on a printed and writ......
-
U.S. v. Mitchell
...See, e. g., Menge v. City of Manchester, 113 N.H. 533, 311 A.2d 116 (1973) (right to copy magnetic computer tape); Oritz v. Jaramillo, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500 (1971) (same); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (1970) (right to inspect court stenographer's notes or mechanical recordings as well as the ......
-
Application of National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
...589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, (1978); Menge v. City of Manchester, 113 N.H. 533, 311 A.2d 116 (1973) (magnetic computer tapes); Ortiz v. Jaramillo, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500 (1971) (same); contra, Guarriello v. Benson, 90 N.J.Super. 233, 217 A.2d 22 (1966) (audio The most pertinent precedent consider......
-
Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex
...the material was sought for election purposes. It was held that a South Carolina statute required compliance. Ortiz v. Jaramillo, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500 (1971) is a similar case in another state. Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 386 A.2d 846 (1978) is a case in which even the political proce......