law enforcement exception in New Mexico

2019See City of 9 Farmington v. The Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, ¶ 13-14 , 146 N.M. 349 , 210 10 P.3d 246 (stating that the burden is on “the custodian of the records to demonstrate 11 a reason for non-disclosure”), overruled on other grounds by Republican Party of 12 N.M., 2012 -NMSC-026, ¶ 16; see also Estate of Romero ex rel.

2019See City of 9 Farmington v. The Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, ¶ 13-14 , 146 N.M. 349 , 210 10 P.3d 246 (stating that the burden is on “the custodian of the records to demonstrate 11 a reason for non-disclosure”), overruled on other grounds by Republican Party of 12 N.M., 2012 -NMSC-026, ¶ 16; see also Estate of Romero ex rel.

2019See Britton, 2019-NMCA-002, ¶ 32 (acknowledging 4 that IPRA’s grant of additional time to comply with excessively burdensome or 5 broad requests indicates that the Legislature intended to prioritize adequate and full 6 responses to requests over time considerations under certain circumstances). 7 However, once the information was gathered and transcribed, there was no 8 impediment to redacting and releasing all nonexempt information in a timely 9 manner, aside from the district attorney’s request that the information be withheld 10 based on the law enforcement exception.

2019“The expectation established by IPRA is that records custodians will diligently undertake their responsibility to process and fully respond to requests, including determining what public records are responsive to the request and what records or portions thereof may be exempt from disclosure, communicating the status of a request to the requester, and ultimately providing for inspection of all nonexempt records.” Britton, 2019-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 .

2022See 2017-NMSC-021, ¶¶ 11, 17 (evaluating a loss of consortium claim brought under the law enforcement waiver, § 41-4-12, and concluding that such a claim was expressly permitted by the statutory language of that provision).

2019See City of 9 Farmington v. The Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, ¶ 13-14 , 146 N.M. 349 , 210 10 P.3d 246 (stating that the burden is on “the custodian of the records to demonstrate 11 a reason for non-disclosure”), overruled on other grounds by Republican Party of 12 N.M., 2012 -NMSC-026, ¶ 16; see also Estate of Romero ex rel.

2019See City of Farmington v. The Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, ¶ 13-14 , 146 N.M. 349 , 210 P.3d 246 (stating that the burden is on “the custodian of the records to demonstrate a reason for non-disclosure”), overruled on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 ; see also Estate of Romero ex rel.

2008The district court found no issues of material fact and granted summary judgment for Defendants. {8} Summary judgment is warranted where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 1-056(C) NMRA, Baptiste v. City of Las Cruces, 115 N.M. 178, 179 , 848 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Ct.App.1993).

2008The district court found no issues of material fact and granted summary judgment for Defendants. {8} Summary judgment is warranted where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 1-056(C) NMRA, Baptiste v. City of Las Cruces, 115 N.M. 178, 179 , 848 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Ct.App.1993).

2008Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 116 N.M. 1, 4 , 859 P.2d 469, 472 (Ct.App.1993), because the director’s duties were of an administrative nature. {13} Although maintaining public order is not clearly defined in the statute, case law has interpreted the phrase to mean essentially the same thing as handling breaches of the peace.

2008Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 116 N.M. 1, 4 , 859 P.2d 469, 472 (Ct.App.1993), because the director’s duties were of an administrative nature. {13} Although maintaining public order is not clearly defined in the statute, case law has interpreted the phrase to mean essentially the same thing as handling breaches of the peace.