39-121.01. Definitions; maintenance of records; copies, printouts or photographs of public records; examination by mail; index
A. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Officer" means any person elected or appointed to hold any elective or appointive office of any public body and any chief administrative officer, head, director, superintendent or chairman of any public body.
2. "Public body" means this state, any county, city, town, school district, political subdivision or tax-supported district in this state, any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council or committee of the foregoing, and any public organization or agency, supported in whole or in part by monies from this state or any political subdivision of this state, or expending monies provided by this state or any political subdivision of this state.
B. All officers and public bodies shall maintain all records, including records as defined in section 41-151, reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and of any of their activities that are supported by monies from this state or any political subdivision of this state.
C. Each public body shall be responsible for the preservation, maintenance and care of that body's public records, and each officer shall be responsible for the preservation, maintenance and care of that officer's public records. It shall be the duty of each such body to carefully secure, protect and preserve public records from deterioration, mutilation, loss or destruction, unless disposed of pursuant to sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19.
D. Subject to section 39-121.03:
1. Any person may request to examine or be furnished copies, printouts or photographs of any public record during regular office hours or may request that the custodian mail a copy of any public record not otherwise available on the public body's website to the requesting person. The custodian may require any person requesting that the custodian mail a copy of any public record to pay in advance for any copying and postage charges. The custodian of such records shall promptly furnish such copies, printouts or photographs and may charge a fee if the facilities are available, except that public records for purposes listed in section 39-122 or 39-127 shall be furnished without charge. At the time of the request, the requesting person shall affirm that the public record is not for a commercial purpose or, if the public record is for a commercial purpose, that the requesting person will provide a statement that explains the intended use pursuant to section 39-121.03, subsection A.
2. If requested, the custodian of the records of an agency shall also furnish an index of records or categories of records that have been withheld and the reasons the records or categories of records have been withheld from the requesting person. The custodian shall not include in the index information that is expressly made privileged or confidential in statute or a court order. This paragraph shall not be construed by an administrative tribunal or a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent or require an order compelling a public body other than an agency to furnish an index. For the purposes of this paragraph, "agency" has the same meaning prescribed in section 41-1001 but does not include the department of public safety, the department of transportation motor vehicle division, the department of juvenile corrections and the state department of corrections.
3. If the custodian of a public record does not have facilities for making copies, printouts or photographs of a public record that a person has a right to inspect, the person shall be granted access to the public record for the purpose of making copies, printouts or photographs. The copies, printouts or photographs shall be made while the public record is in the possession, custody and control of the custodian of the public record and shall be subject to the supervision of the custodian.
E. Access to a public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond to a request for production of a public record or fails to provide to the requesting person an index of any record or categories of records that are withheld from production pursuant to subsection D, paragraph 2 of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 13× “Although our statutes do not expressly define the phrase “public records and other matters,” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(B) requires “[a]ll officers and public bodies” to maintain all records “reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of [a public entity or…”
Carlson v. Pima Cnty., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 18× “The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 16× “Each member of the Board and its Search Committee is a "public officer" as defined by A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1). 3. As the Board's Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Molly Broad, is a "public officer" as defined in A.”
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 165 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 13× “CONCLUSION ¶33 For the reasons stated above, the superior court properly applied A.R.S. § 39-121.01 in ordering prospective relief under the circumstances presented by this case.”
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 13× “¶ 11 Although we agree with the court of appeals that there may be documents that in some sense qualify as “records” without necessarily being public records, such a distinction cannot be grounded in A.R.S. § 39-121.01. As we noted in Carlson , the 1975 adoption of § 39-121.”
Griffis v. Pinal Cnty., 141 P.3d 780 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 25× “The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 24× “Since then, A.R.S. § 39-121.01, which now includes a subsection on definitions, was added by 1975 Ariz.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 35 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “The parties were not entitled to new evidentiary hearings merely because they did not foresee this particular outcome. [7] BALANCING OF INTERESTS ¶ 17 We now turn to the pivotal issue: Did the court correctly balance the competing interests? The general statutory right of…”
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson & Tucson Police Dep't, 365 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “01(D)(1), constituting wrongful denial of the records under § 39-121.01 (E). The trial court did not specifically rule on the promptness of the response, but generally denied all additional relief to Hodai.”
Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep't, 594 P.2d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 8× “In 1975, the legislature added A.R.S. § 39-121.01. That provision, which now incorporates subsequent amendments not material to the questions before us, defines a responsibility of all officers of public bodies to maintain all records reasonably necessary or appropriate to…”
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Rogers, 815 P.2d 900 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 5× “The Disclosure Request of Phoenix Newspapers On August 14,1990, Kerry Fehr requested from ADOT under A.R.S. § 39-121.01 a list of the individual allottees and the amounts they received for their interests.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(8) — 1 case
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Since then, A.R.S. § 39-121.01, which now includes a subsection on definitions, was added by 1975 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(A) — 4 cases
Carlson v. Pima Cnty., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1984).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Griffis v. Pinal Cnty., 141 P.3d 780 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(A)(1) — 5 cases
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991).
“Each member of the Board and its Search Committee is a "public officer" as defined by A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1). 3. As the Board's Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Molly Broad, is a "public officer" as defined in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(A)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(A)(l) — 3 cases
Carlson v. Pima Cnty., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1984).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991).
“Each member of the Board and its Search Committee is a "public officer" as defined by A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1). 3. As the Board's Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Molly Broad, is a "public officer" as defined in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(B) — 28 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although our statutes do not expressly define the phrase “public records and other matters,” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(B) requires “[a]ll officers and public bodies” to maintain all records “reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of [a public entity or…”
Carlson v. Pima Cnty., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1984).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991).
“Each member of the Board and its Search Committee is a "public officer" as defined by A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1). 3. As the Board's Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Molly Broad, is a "public officer" as defined in A.”
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).
“¶ 11 Although we agree with the court of appeals that there may be documents that in some sense qualify as “records” without necessarily being public records, such a distinction cannot be grounded in A.R.S. § 39-121.01. As we noted in Carlson , the 1975 adoption of § 39-121.”
Griffis v. Pinal Cnty., 141 P.3d 780 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(C) — 3 cases
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Since then, A.R.S. § 39-121.01, which now includes a subsection on definitions, was added by 1975 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(D) — 9 cases
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 35 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“The parties were not entitled to new evidentiary hearings merely because they did not foresee this particular outcome. [7] BALANCING OF INTERESTS ¶ 17 We now turn to the pivotal issue: Did the court correctly balance the competing interests? The general statutory right of…”
Carlson v. Pima Cnty., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1984).
“The enactment of A.R.S. § 39-121.01 did not expressly limit the doctrine of Mathews v.”
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).
“¶ 11 Although we agree with the court of appeals that there may be documents that in some sense qualify as “records” without necessarily being public records, such a distinction cannot be grounded in A.R.S. § 39-121.01. As we noted in Carlson , the 1975 adoption of § 39-121.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(D)(1) — 13 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although our statutes do not expressly define the phrase “public records and other matters,” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(B) requires “[a]ll officers and public bodies” to maintain all records “reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of [a public entity or…”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 35 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“The parties were not entitled to new evidentiary hearings merely because they did not foresee this particular outcome. [7] BALANCING OF INTERESTS ¶ 17 We now turn to the pivotal issue: Did the court correctly balance the competing interests? The general statutory right of…”
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson & Tucson Police Dep't, 365 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“01(D)(1), constituting wrongful denial of the records under § 39-121.01 (E). The trial court did not specifically rule on the promptness of the response, but generally denied all additional relief to Hodai.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(D)(2) — 6 cases
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson & Tucson Police Dep't, 365 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“01(D)(1), constituting wrongful denial of the records under § 39-121.01 (E). The trial court did not specifically rule on the promptness of the response, but generally denied all additional relief to Hodai.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although our statutes do not expressly define the phrase “public records and other matters,” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(B) requires “[a]ll officers and public bodies” to maintain all records “reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of [a public entity or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(D)(l) — 6 cases
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).
“¶ 11 Although we agree with the court of appeals that there may be documents that in some sense qualify as “records” without necessarily being public records, such a distinction cannot be grounded in A.R.S. § 39-121.01. As we noted in Carlson , the 1975 adoption of § 39-121.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 35 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“The parties were not entitled to new evidentiary hearings merely because they did not foresee this particular outcome. [7] BALANCING OF INTERESTS ¶ 17 We now turn to the pivotal issue: Did the court correctly balance the competing interests? The general statutory right of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(E) — 10 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although our statutes do not expressly define the phrase “public records and other matters,” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(B) requires “[a]ll officers and public bodies” to maintain all records “reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of [a public entity or…”
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Since then, A.R.S. § 39-121.01, which now includes a subsection on definitions, was added by 1975 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.01(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.