N.M. Stat. § 14-2-1 (2026)

Every person has a right to inspect public records of this state except:
   A. records pertaining to physical or mental examinations and medical treatment of
persons confined to an institution;

   B. letters of reference concerning employment, licensing or permits;

   C. letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files or students'
cumulative files;

   D. portions of law enforcement records as provided in Section 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978;

   E. as provided by the Confidential Materials Act [14-3A-1, 14-3A-2 NMSA 1978];

   F. trade secrets;

   G. attorney-client privileged information;

   H. long-range or strategic business plans of public hospitals discussed in a properly
closed meeting;

   I. tactical response plans or procedures prepared for or by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, the publication of which could reveal specific vulnerabilities, risk
assessments or tactical emergency security procedures that could be used to facilitate
the planning or execution of a terrorist attack;

   J. information concerning information technology systems, the publication of which
would reveal specific vulnerabilities that compromise or allow unlawful access to such
systems; provided that this subsection shall not be used to restrict requests for:

       (1)    records stored or transmitted using information technology systems;

      (2)    internal and external audits of information technology systems, except for
those portions that would reveal ongoing vulnerabilities that compromise or allow
unlawful access to such systems; or

      (3)       information to authenticate or validate records received pursuant to a
request fulfilled pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act;

    K. submissions in response to a competitive grant, land lease or scholarship and
related scoring materials and evaluation reports until finalists are publicly named or the
award is announced;

    L. records containing personal identifying information or sensitive information
related to the practice of a medical provider employed by a public body who performs
medical services related to abortion;
   M. case records, third party records, court records and any information gathered in
the course of investigations and system monitoring duties by the office of child
advocate, pursuant to the provisions of the Office of Child Advocate Act [32A-30-1 to
32A-30-15 NMSA 1978]; and

   N. as otherwise provided by law.

History: 1941 Comp., § 13-501, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 130, § 1; 1953 Comp., §
71-5-1; Laws 1973, ch. 271, § 1; 1981, ch. 47, § 3; 1993, ch. 260, § 1; 1998 (1st S.S.),
ch. 3, § 1; 1999, ch. 158, § 1; 2003, ch. 288, § 1; 2005, ch. 126, § 1; 2011, ch. 134, § 2;
2019, ch. 27, § 1; 2023, ch. 67, § 2; 2025, ch. 13, § 18; 2025, ch. 60, § 1.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For use of police reports for commercial solicitation, see 14-2A-1
NMSA 1978.

For provisions of Arrest Record Information Act, see Chapter 29, Article 10 NMSA 1978.

2025 Multiple Amendments. — Laws 2025, ch. 13, § 18, effective July 1, 2025, and
Laws 2025, ch. 60, § 1, effective June 20, 2025, enacted different amendments to this
section that can be reconciled. Pursuant to 12-1-8 NMSA 1978, Laws 2025, ch. 60, § 1
as the last act signed by the governor is set out above and incorporates both
amendments. The amendments enacted by Laws 2025, ch. 13, § 18 and Laws 2025,
ch. 60, § 1 are described below. To view the session laws in their entirety, see the 2025
session laws on NMOneSource.com.

The nature of the difference between the amendments is that Section 14-2-1 NMSA
1978, as amended by Laws 2025, ch. 13, § 18, added records gathered during the
course of investigations and system monitoring duties by the office of child advocate to
the list of exceptions to the right to inspect public records, and Laws 2025, ch. 60, § 1,
added records containing personal identifying information or sensitive information
related to the practice of a medical provider employed by a public body who performs
medical services related to abortion to the list of exceptions to the right to inspect public
records.

Laws 2025, ch. 60, § 1, effective June 20, 2025, added records containing personal
identifying information or sensitive information related to the practice of a medical
provider employed by a public body who performs medical services related to abortion
to the list of exceptions to the right to inspect public records; added a new Subsection L
and redesignated former Subsection L as Subsection M [N].

Laws 2025, ch. 13, § 18, effective July 1, 2025, added records gathered during the
course of investigations and system monitoring duties by the office of child advocate to
the list of exceptions to the right to inspect public records; added a new Subsection L
and redesignated former Subsection L as Subsection M [N].
The 2023 amendment, effective March 30, 2023, removed provisions related to law
enforcement records to conform with the enactment of § 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978,
excepted from disclosure of information concerning information technology systems,
submissions to grant programs, land leases and scholarship programs; in Subsection D,
after "portions of law enforcement records", deleted "that reveal" and added "as
provided in Section 14-2-1.2 NMSA 1978", deleted Paragraphs D(1) and D(2);
redesignated former Subsection G as Subsection I; and added new Subsections J and
K and redesignated former Subsection H as Subsection L.

The 2019 amendment, effective June 14, 2019, provided an exception to the right to
inspect public records for portions of law enforcement records that contain identifying
information of certain victims of and witnesses to certain crimes; deleted subsection
designation "A", deleted Subsection B, and redesignated former Paragraphs A(1)
through A(8) as Subsections A through H, respectively; in Subsection D, added
"portions of", added paragraph designations "(1)" and "(2)", in Paragraph D(1), after
"methods", added "or", in Paragraph D(2), added "before charges are filed, names,
address, contact information, or protected personal identifier information as defined in
this Act of", after "individuals", added "who are", added new subparagraph designation
"(a)", and Subparagraph D(2)(b); and after Paragraph D(2)(b), after "listed in this",
deleted "paragraph" and added the remainder of the paragraph.

The 2011 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, permitted the inspection of records
containing identity or identifying information about an applicant or nominee for president
of a public institution of higher learning and the inspection of discharge papers of
veterans, and authorized a public body to redact protected personal identifier
information before inspection.

The 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, added Subsection A(9) through (11) to
provide exceptions to the right to inspect public records for certain discharge papers of
military veterans.

The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, inserted Paragraph A(8) and
redesignated former Paragraph A(8) as Paragraph A(9).

The 1999 amendment, effective April 5, 1999, in Subsection A added Paragraph (6)
and redesignated the remaining paragraphs accordingly.

The 1998 amendment, effective May 11, 1998, designated the former introductory
paragraph as Subsection A, redesignated the existing paragraphs thereunder as
Paragraphs A(1)-(5) and (7), and added Paragraph A(6), making minor stylistic
changes; and added Subsection B.

The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, substituted "person" for "citizen of this
state" in the introductory language, substituted "institution" for "institutions" in
Subsection A, added Subsection D, and redesignated former Subsections D and E as
Subsections E and F.
                          I.     GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Retroactive application of the Supreme Court decision in Republication Party v.
Taxation & Revenue. — Where, in 2007, plaintiff requested copies of a draft letter and
emails relating to a federal program managed by defendant and defendant denied
plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the documents were protected by the deliberative
process privilege and the rule of reason, the principles of Republican Party of N.M. v.
N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853 applied retroactively to
plaintiff’s request because the supreme court did not announce a new rule regarding the
deliberative process privilege, and although the supreme court overruled cases in which
the rule of reason was endorsed, defendant did not rely on the precedent overruled by
the supreme court when it denied plaintiff’s request, retroactive application of the
decision would further the purposes of the Inspection of Public Records Act, and
retroactive application of the decision would not result in any inequity. Edenburn v. N.M.
Dep’t of Health, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.

Rule of reason. — The rule of reason is a non-statutory exception to disclosure which
provides a mechanism for addressing claims of confidentiality that have not been
specifically addressed by the legislature. The rule of reason applies only to public
records that do not fall into one of the statutory exceptions to disclosure and requires
the custodian of public records to justify why the records sought to be inspected should
not be furnished and the district court to balance the fundamental right of all citizens to
have reasonable access to public records against countervailing public policy
considerations which favor confidentiality and nondisclosure. City of Farmington v. The
Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, 146 N.M. 349, 210 P.3d 246.

Inspection of Public Records Act is statutory scheme of general application.
Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d
1273.

Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer. — Citizen complaints
concerning the on-duty conduct of a law enforcement officer are public records available
to the public for inspection. Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-096, 148
N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d
1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.

Right of citizen to inspect. — A citizen has a fundamental right to have access to
public records. The citizen's right to know is the rule, and secrecy is the exception.
Where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect
public records must be freely allowed. State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-
076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.

Nondisclosure of names of terminated employees. — Where the reason for
termination of public employees is a matter of public knowledge before the individuals
are terminated, the privacy of the disciplinary proceeding can only be protected by
upholding the administrative decision not to disclose the names of the individuals
affected. State ex rel. Barber v. McCotter, 1987-NMSC-046, 106 N.M. 1, 738 P.2d 119.

Communications made in furtherance of legal services were exempt from
disclosure. — Where plaintiffs sought disclosure of certain documents related to the
abrupt and premature resignation of the superintendent of the Albuquerque public
schools, and where the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment,
concluding that a particular investigatory report, prepared by an attorney at the behest
of the Albuquerque public school board (board), was entirely excepted from production
under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) on the grounds that the report was a
matter of opinion contained within a personnel file, or a public record protected by
attorney-client privilege, the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for
summary judgment, because the attorney was hired to provide professional legal
services regarding the board's employment of the superintendent, and the
communications the attorney provided as part of her work for the board were made for
the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services and were therefore
confidential and privileged. Albuquerque Journal v. Bd. of Educ. of APS, 2025-NMCA-
020, cert. granted.

Investigatory report containing employer opinion information was exempt from
disclosure in its entirety. — Where plaintiffs sought disclosure of certain documents
related to the abrupt and premature resignation of the superintendent of the
Albuquerque public schools, and where the district court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, concluding that a particular investigatory report, prepared by an
attorney at the behest of the Albuquerque public school board, was entirely excepted
from production under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) on the grounds that
the report was a matter of opinion contained within a personnel file, or a public record
protected by attorney-client privilege, the district court did not err in granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment, because the report contained matters of opinion in a
personnel file, and defendants were under no obligation to sift through a document that
has been successfully established as privileged in its entirety, and parse what may be
properly withheld. Albuquerque Journal v. Bd. of Educ. of APS, 2025-NMCA-020, cert.
granted.

Records related to anonymous hotline complaints are not exempt from
production. — Where plaintiffs sought disclosure of an internal report regarding two
complaints made through an anonymous, publicly accessible reporting system
maintained on behalf of the Albuquerque public schools (APS) by a third-party vendor,
and where, following trial, the district court found that APS possessed the report at the
time the records custodian received the records request, failed to identify it in its
response, and never produced the report or offered a denial or explanation as to why it
was not produced, the district court did not err in finding that defendants violated the
Inspection of Public Records Act, because there was inconclusive evidence to establish
that the complainants were APS employees, and therefore the hotline complaints were
not generated by the employer or employee in support of the working relationship
between them, and are therefore not exempt from production under 14-2-1(C) NMSA
1978. Albuquerque Journal v. Bd. of Educ. of APS, 2025-NMCA-020, cert. granted.

Billing records were not exempt from disclosure. — Where plaintiffs sought
disclosure of billing records related to certain legal services provided to the Albuquerque
public schools (APS), and where the records custodian, after conducting a search for
such records, denied the request on the grounds that APS had no records to provide,
although a bill for those legal services had been hand-delivered to APS the day before
the records custodian issued his denial, and where the records custodian, after being
notified that APS had received a bill from the law firm, failed to send a new response to
plaintiffs updating them as to the existence of the record, the district court did not err in
finding that defendants violated the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), because
defendants denied an IPRA request on the basis that they did not have the records
requested when, in fact, they did possess such records. Albuquerque Journal v. Bd. of
Educ. of APS, 2025-NMCA-020, cert. granted.

Defendant failed to meet burden of establishing privilege in request for public
records action. — In an underlying enforcement action under the New Mexico
Inspection of Public Records Act, 14-2-1 to -12 NMSA 1978, where plaintiffs made a
combined seven written requests of the Albuquerque public schools (APS) to inspect
documents referencing complaints or allegations of misconduct regarding the former
superintendent of APS, the district court did not err in ordering the non-party appellant
to answer plaintiffs' deposition questions, because appellant failed to identify any
privilege, either adopted by the New Mexico supreme court or recognized under the
New Mexico constitution, on which to base her argument that communications
regarding “limited personnel matters” that occur during a closed public meeting are
immune from discovery, and failed to meet her burden of establishing the essential
elements necessary to prove the applicability of the attorney-client privilege, based on a
claimed common interest, to her communications with APS attorneys. Albuquerque
Journal v. Board of Educ., 2019-NMCA-012, cert. granted.

A state agency is a "person", for purposes of IPRA, and may request public
records from other state agencies. — Where the state ethics commission
(commission) sent a public records request, pursuant to the Inspection of Public
Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, to the New Mexico human services
department [health care authority department] (department), asking the department to
provide copies of certain emails from several named employees, and where the
department denied the request claiming that the commission, itself a "public body" for
the purposes of IPRA, is not a "person" entitled to make public records requests, the
department erred in denying the commission’s public records request, because a public
body is an "entity," within the definition of "person," § 14-2-6(D), and therefore the plain
language of IPRA demonstrates that public bodies can submit public records requests
to other public bodies. This reading of the statute is also consistent with IPRA’s
declared purpose, that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information
regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and
employees. Public Records Requests Made by the State Ethics Comm’n (10/27/21),
Att’y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2021-12.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is not an exception to disclosure of
public records. — Where the state ethics commission (commission) sent a public
records request to the New Mexico human services department [health care authority
department] (department), asking the department to provide copies of certain emails
from several named employees, and where the department denied the request claiming
that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), NMSA 1978, § 10-16F-1 to -6,
operates as an exception to disclosure through the Inspection of Public Records Act
(IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, because the commission may obtain the
requested records through a subpoena, the department erred in denying the
commission’s public records request, because the commission’s ability to obtain pubic
records through a subpoena does not mean that it is unable to seek the same records
through IPRA, and nothing in the ECPA’s text suggests that the legislature intended the
statute to operate as an exception to disclosure through IPRA. Public Records
Requests Made by the State Ethics Comm’n (10/27/21), Att’y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2021-12.

                    II.     RECORDS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION.

Pleading an action for enforcement of IPRA against a private entity. — To plead an
action for enforcement of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 to 14-2-12
NMSA 1978, against a private entity, a plaintiff must simply allege that the records
sought are public records arising out of the private entity's performance of a public
function and that the private entity has failed to comply with IPRA via the manner
outlined in either 14-2-11(C) NMSA 1978 or 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978. Franklin v. Keefe
Commissary Network, 2024-NMCA-070.

Records arising out of a private entity's performance of a public function and on
behalf of a public entity are subject to IPRA. — Where plaintiff, a state inmate,
requested records regarding commissary prices for state prisoners, pursuant to the New
Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 to 14-2-12 NMSA 1978, from
defendant, a private corporation contracting with the New Mexico corrections
department (NMCD) to operate an inmate commissary program at New Mexico state
facilities, based on plaintiff's belief that prices were not set at fair market value, and
where, upon receiving no response from defendant, plaintiff filed a complaint to enforce
IPRA, and where defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss, arguing that defendant
was not subject to IPRA because it is a private entity, the district court erred in granting
defendant's motion to dismiss, because the records sought were public records arising
out of defendant's performance of a public function and on behalf of a public entity.
Plaintiff established under the facts of the complaint that defendant may be subject to
IPRA. Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, 2024-NMCA-070.

Property valuation records. — The valuation records statute, § 7-38-19, expressly
recognizes that valuation records are public records except to the extent that they
contain information regarding income, certain expenses, profits and losses relating to
the property or owner, or diagrams of the interior arrangements of buildings or alarm,
electrical, or plumbing systems; the presence of any of the above information on a
property card does not render the entire card excepted from being a public record, since
such a literal reading of the statute is unreasonable and would effect a nullification of
the statutes providing that valuation records are, in general, public. Gordon v. Sandoval
Cnty. Assessor, 2001-NMCA-044, 130 N.M. 573, 28 P.3d 1114.

Voter registration records. — A county chairman of a political party is entitled to have
the working master record of the voter registration records of the county copied, or
duplicated at his expense under the county clerk's supervision, as these records are
public records. Ortiz v. Jaramillo, 1971-NMSC-041, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500.

Military and arrest records of state employees. — Supreme court declined to hold
that all information in employment records of state university regarding military
discharges or arrest records should be exempted from disclosure. State ex rel.
Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.

                                  III.   EXCEPTIONS.

                                  A.     IN GENERAL.

Rule of reason has no application to the inspection of public records. — The rule
of reason, whereby courts determine whether records not specifically exempted by the
Inspection of Public Records Act, Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., nevertheless
should be withheld from the requestor on the grounds that disclosure would not be in
the public interest, has no application to the inspection of public records under the act.
Courts should restrict their analysis to whether disclosure under the act may be withheld
because of a specific exception contained within the act, or statutory or regulatory
exceptions, or privileges adopted by the supreme court or grounded in the constitution.
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMSC-026, 283
P.3d 853, overruling City of Farmington v. The Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-057, 146 N.M.
349, 210 P.3d 246 and Board of Comm’rs of Dona Ana Cnty. v. Las Cruces Sun-News,
2003-NMCA-102, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.

The deliberative process privilege does not exist under New Mexico law. — The
common law deliberative process privilege, which applies to decision making of
executive officials generally and which only covers material that is predecisional and
deliberative, does not exist under New Mexico law. Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M.
Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853, rev’g 2010-NMCA-080, 148
N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444 and disavowing State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. First Judicial Dist.
Court, 1981-NMSC-053, 96 N.M. 254, 629 P.2d 330.

Executive privilege. — The executive privilege in New Mexico, which derives from the
constitution and which is reserved to and can be invoked only by the governor, extends
only to documents that are communicative in nature, that are made to and from
individuals in very close organizational and functional proximity to the governor, and that
relate to decisions made by the governor in the performance of the governor’s
constitutionally-mandated duties. Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue
Dep’t, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853.

Application of the executive privilege to the inspection of public records. —
Courts considering the application of the executive privilege to a request for the
inspection of public records under the Inspection of Public Records Act, Section 14-2-1
NMSA 1978 et seq., must independently determine whether the documents at issue are
in fact covered by the privilege and whether the privilege has been invoked by the
governor, to whom the privilege is reserved. Courts are not required to balance the
competing needs of the executive and the party seeking disclosure. Where appropriate,
courts should conduct an in camera view of the documents at issue as part of their
evaluation of the privilege. Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t,
2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853.

Executive privilege did not apply to drivers’ license records. — Where petitioners
requested public documents from the motor vehicle division relating to the issuance of
drivers’ licenses to foreign nationals and to an audit of the license program ordered by
the governor; the motor vehicle division redacted information pursuant to executive
privilege; the redacted documents included communications regarding New Mexico’s
negotiations with the Mexican government regarding access to identity documents and
discussions related to implementing the audit of the driver’s license program; the
documents at issue were principally internal emails between staff of the motor vehicle
division, not communications with the governor or the governor’s immediate staff; and
the motor vehicle division, not the governor, asserted the executive privilege; the
documents at issue did not qualify for the executive privilege. Republican Party of N.M.
v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMSC-026, 283 P.3d 853, rev'g 2010-NMCA-
080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444.

Driver’s license records. — Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether
undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information
about driver’s licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the
United States, defendants properly redacted individual tax identification numbers and
the names, driver’s license numbers, and addresses of drivers who obtained their
license with proof of identification other than a social security number, because the
redacted information was personal information which defendants were prohibited from
disclosing by 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(1) and by Section 66-2-7.1 NMSA 1978. Republican
Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242
P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.

Executive privilege is a non-statutory exception to disclosure which requires the court
to balance the fundamental right of all citizens to have reasonable access to public
records against countervailing public policy considerations which favor confidentiality
and nondisclosure. Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2010-
NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M.
942, 242 P.3d 1288.
Executive privilege. — Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether
undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information
about driver’s licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the
United States, defendants were authorized by the executive privilege exception to
redact communications between the governor’s office and the defendants regarding
New Mexico’s negotiations with the Mexican government regarding driver’s identification
confirmation, discussions about drivers who applied for licenses using documents
whose authenticity the motor vehicle division had not been able to confirm, and
discussions related to an audit to determine whether licenses had been issued to
individuals who submitted documents of questionable authenticity. Republican Party of
N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444,
cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.

Attorney-client privilege. — Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether
undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information
about driver’s licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the
United States, defendants were authorized by the attorney-client privilege exception to
redact communications between the general counsel for the governor’s office and
executive branch personnel about communications with the Mexican government
regarding the issuance of driver’s licenses in New Mexico, an audit of drivers who
obtained licenses with individual tax identification numbers, communications with drivers
whose documentation could not be verified, and legal analysis of the process for
obtaining a driver’s license. Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue
Dep't, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242 P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-
008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.

Attorney-client privilege exemption. — Where plaintiff sued the board of
commissioners for Sandoval county and the Sandoval county records custodian,
claiming that defendants violated IPRA by denying her the opportunity to inspect certain
records, including emails sent between the county's public information officer and the
county manager concerning IPRA lawsuits involving the county and the county's
processing of IPRA requests, and where, after an in camera review of three emails that
were not produced by the county, the district court issued its order, determining that all
three emails were protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege, the district court
erred in exempting the first email, because although the email contained the designation
"Attorney-Client Privileged" the email was not made for the purpose of facilitating or
providing professional legal services, but rather to apprise its recipients of a decision
which the public information officer had previously made concerning an IPRA request,
but the district court did not err in exempting the second and third emails which
summarized conversations between the public information officer and attorneys for the
county, and the general rule is that a communication relaying privileged legal advice
between representatives of an organization client who can act on that advice qualifies
as being made for the purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services to
that client. Tawater v. Board of Comm'rs, 2023-NMCA-052.
The office of the attorney general failed to establish the elements of a prima facie
case for the application of either attorney-client privilege or attorney work-
product immunity. — Where plaintiff requested inspection of common interest
agreements entered into by the New Mexico office of the attorney general (OAG) with
other states' offices of the attorney general, as well as correspondence and emails
relating to the formation of these agreements, and where the OAG responded to the
requests by withholding some responsive documents altogether, without disclosing that
any documents were being withheld, producing some documents with all but a
"privileged or confidential" stamp redacted, and producing other documents with
multiple lengthy redactions, claiming that the redactions were supported by the
Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) exception for law enforcement records or
because the redactions constituted confidential attorney-client communications and
protected attorney work-product, and where plaintiff challenged both the withholding of
some documents and the heavy redaction of the documents provided, claiming that
none of the cited IPRA exceptions supported the denial of responsive information, and
where the OAG filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that its blanket assertion
of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product, together with its assertion of good faith,
established a prima facie case justifying the denial of inspection of unidentified, withheld
documents, as well as the redactions it made on the documents that were produced, the
district court erred in granting the OAG's motion for summary judgment, because the
OAG failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment on either the IPRA
exception for attorney-client privilege, as extended by the common interest doctrine, or
the catchall exception for attorney work-product. A generalized assertion of privilege or
immunity, even if the public agency asserts the privilege or immunity in good faith, is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of compliance with IPRA supporting summary
judgment. Energy Pol'y Advoc. v. Balderas, 2024-NMCA-081.

Catchall "as otherwise provided by law" exception construed. — Based on the
plain language of 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, the "catchall provision," and from its
construction by New Mexico courts, it is apparent that the legislature's purpose is to
allow the confidentiality provisions of other statutes, regulations, court rules, and
constitutional privileges to be applied as exceptions to the Inspection of Public Records
Act (IPRA) and to do so without the legislature having to enact each of them again as
part of IPRA. Beck v. State ex rel. CYFD, 2024-NMCA-082, cert. denied.

CYFD regulation prohibiting the disclosure of foster parents' identifying
information has the force of law and is incorporated by the catchall "as otherwise
provided by law" exception. — Where the children, youth and families department
(CYFD) redacted the names, email addresses, and physical addresses of CYFD
licensed foster parents from its responses to plaintiff's requests for emails, text
messages, and other meeting notes mentioning plaintiff by name, claiming that the
names and other personally-identifying information of foster parents sought by plaintiff
were exempt from disclosure under the catchall, "as otherwise provided by law"
exception to IPRA inspection, 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, and where plaintiff claimed that
14-2-6(F) NMSA 1978 and 14-2-1.1 NMSA 1978, which together allow state agencies to
redact certain "protected personal identifiers" from all documents prior to their
inspection under IPRA, provide the exclusive list of personal identifying information that
may be exempted from inspection by a public agency under IPRA, the district court
erred in requiring CYFD to make available for inspection the personal identifying
information of CYFD licensed foster parents, because CYFD's regulation protecting the
personally identifying information of foster parents is a regulation having the force of
law, enforceable under the "as otherwise provided by law" exception. Beck v. State ex
rel. CYFD, 2024-NMCA-082, cert. denied.

Section 6-5A-1(D) NMSA 1978 does not serve as a statutory exemption to the
Inspection of Public Records Act. — In consolidated appeals arising from two
lawsuits brought by plaintiff against defendants, the university of New Mexico
foundation, the university of New Mexico lobo club, and the board of regents of the
university of New Mexico, under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), §§ 14-2-1
through 14-2-12 NMSA 1978, seeking donor lists and records and communications
related to a naming agreement between the university of New Mexico and a restaurant
chain that obtained naming rights to a major sporting facility operated by the university,
and where defendants argued that these records were exempt from disclosure under
Section 6-5A-1 NMSA 1978 and that the records were not public records under IPRA,
the district court did not err in ruling that § 6-5A-1(D) did not function as an exemption to
IPRA, because a plain reading of § 6-5A-1 establishes that the legislature expressly
designated organizations' annual audits as public records, but also made clear that it
was not doing the same for other records. Thus, while an organization's records might
be public records subject to inspection, § 6-5A-1 does not specifically exempt any
records from disclosure. Libit v. UNM Lobo Club, 2022-NMCA-043, cert. granted.

                      B.     PARTICULAR RECORDS EXCEPTED.

Draft documents are public documents that are subject to public inspection.
Edenburn v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert. denied, 2013-
NMCERT-002.

Draft letter and emails. — Where plaintiff requested a copy of a draft letter and a string
of emails that related to a federal program managed by defendant; defendant denied
plaintiff the right to inspect the emails on the ground that the emails were protected by
the deliberative process privilege because they were deliberative communications
between defendant’s employees before any final determinations were made; and
defendant denied plaintiff the right to inspect the draft letter on the grounds that the draft
letter, as a draft document, was not subject to public records status and was exempt
from disclosure by the rule of reason and the same principles upon which the
deliberative process privilege is grounded, the draft letter and the emails were subject to
disclosure because neither the deliberative process privilege nor the rule of reason are
recognized in New Mexico and there was no specific statutory, regulatory, court
adopted privilege, or constitutional provision that exempts draft documents from
inspection. Edenburn v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 2013-NMCA-045, 299 P.3d 424, cert.
denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.
The contents of an officeholder's personal election campaign Facebook page are
not public records of a public body. — In a superintending control proceeding arising
from an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) action filed in the fifth judicial district
court (district court), where the real party in interest, a party to a civil case in the first
judicial district court, sought to inspect the contents of a personal election Facebook
page maintained by a first judicial district court judge (judge), the district court did not err
in determining that the contents of the judge's personal election campaign Facebook
page were not public records of a public body subject to IPRA disclosure requirements,
because IPRA is aimed at the affairs of government and the official acts of public
officers and employees, and there was no evidence that the judge's personal election
campaign or its Facebook site were acting on behalf of the first judicial district court or
any other public body, that any government funding was involved in maintenance of the
Facebook site or any of its activities, or that the judge conducted public business
through the site. Pacheco v. Hudson, 2018-NMSC-022.

Judicial deliberation privilege. — There exists a judicial deliberation privilege
protecting the confidentiality of draft judicial orders and other internal judicial-making
processes between judges and between judges and the court's staff made in the course
of the performance of their judicial duties and related to official court business. Pacheco
v. Hudson, 2018-NMSC-022.

In a superintending control proceeding arising from an Inspection of Public Records Act
(IPRA) action filed in the fifth judicial district court (district court), where the real party in
interest, a party to a civil case in the first judicial district court, sought to inspect email
communications related to a draft copy of a preliminary injunction order that a judge in
the first judicial district court had been preparing for issuance in the underlying civil
case, email exchanges between the judge and court staff, as well as an email exchange
between the judge and the supreme court law librarian, were protected by the judicial
deliberation privilege, because the email exchanges reflected the judge's internal
judicial decision-making processes. Pacheco v. Hudson, 2018-NMSC-022.

Child abuse and neglect proceedings. — Section 32A-4-33 NMSA 1978 of the
Children's Code exempts the child's records in a civil abuse and neglect proceeding
from the public's right to inspect public records authorized by Section 14-2-1(F) NMSA
1978 (1993) (now 14-2-1(A)(12) NMSA 1978). State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families
Dep’t v. George F., 1998-NMCA-119, 125 N.M. 597, 964 P.2d 158.

Criminal investigation records. — The legislature has expressed its intent to protect
from disclosure police investigatory materials in an on-going criminal investigation
through the Inspection of Public Records Act (Section 14-2-1(A)(4) NMSA 1978). Estate
of Romero v. City of Santa Fe, 2006-NMSC-028, 139 N.M. 671, 137 P.3d 611.

There is not a blanket exception from inspection for law enforcement records
relating to an ongoing criminal investigation. — Where plaintiff sent a written
request to the department of public safety (DPS) pursuant to IPRA for various records
relating to the shooting death of his brother, and where DPS produced a primary
incident report, the personnel records of one of the officers involved, and one subpoena,
but denied production of all other pertinent records in its possession, claiming that the
release of the requested information posed a demonstrable and serious threat to an
ongoing criminal investigation and that the FBI asked DPS to withhold the records in
order to maintain the integrity of its investigation, the district court erred in denying
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in granting DPS's motion for summary
judgment, because this section does not create a blanket exception from inspection of
law enforcement records relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and DPS did not
present evidence that any specific records that it refused to produce revealed
confidential sources, methods, information or individuals accused but not charged with a
crime, nor did DPS present any evidence that it reviewed the requested records to
separate the exempt from nonexempt information, or that it provided any nonexempt
information existing within records containing exempt information. Jones v. N.M. Dep't
of Public Safety, 2020-NMSC-013, rev'g No. A-1-CA-35120, mem. op. (May 10, 2018)
(non-precedential).

Property valuation records. — The valuation records statute, Section 7-38-19 NMSA
1978, expressly recognizes that valuation records are public records except to the
extent that they contain information regarding income, certain expenses, profits and
losses relating to the property or owner, or diagrams of the interior arrangements of
buildings or alarm, electrical, or plumbing systems; the presence of any of the above
information on a property card does not render the entire card excepted from being a
public record, since such a literal reading of the statute is unreasonable and would
effect a nullification of the statutes providing that valuation records are, in general,
public. Gordon v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor, 2001-NMCA-044, 130 N.M. 573, 28 P.3d
1114.

Driver’s license records. — Where plaintiffs, who wanted to research whether
undocumented aliens were voting in elections in New Mexico, requested information
about drivers' licenses issued to persons who were not citizens or legal residents of the
United States, defendants properly redacted individual tax identification numbers and
the names, drivers' license numbers, and addresses of drivers who obtained their
license with proof of identification other than a social security number, because the
redacted information was personal information which defendants were prohibited from
disclosing by 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(1) and by Section 66-2-7.1 NMSA 1978. Republican
Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2010-NMCA-080, 148 N.M. 877, 242
P.3d 444, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-008, 148 N.M. 942, 242 P.3d 1288.

Computerized database of public record. — There is no intent on the part of the
legislature with respect to Section 14-3-15.1 C NMSA 1978 that that statute and the
policy underlying it, and not the Inspection of Public Records Act and the policies
underlying it, apply to a copy of a medium containing a computerized database of a
public record. Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26,
106 P.3d 1273.
Letters of reference. — A letter of reference, as that term is used in Paragraph (2) of
Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978, is generally considered to be a statement
of support for an applicant that assists a future employer or licensor in evaluation of an
applicant for a job, license, or permit; is typically solicited either by a prospective
applicant or the prospective employer; and addresses the prospective applicant’s
general qualifications for employment or licensing. Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety,
2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149
N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d
632.

Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer. — Citizen complaints
concerning the on-duty conduct of a law enforcement officer are not letters of reference
as that term is used in Paragraph (2) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978.
Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert.
granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-
NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.

Records in personnel files. — The location of a record in a personnel file is not
dispositive of whether the exception in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1
NMSA 1978 applies. The critical factor is the nature of the document itself. Cox v. N.M.
Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted,
2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006,
150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.

Matters of opinion in personnel files. — Matters of opinion in personnel files, as that
term is used in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978, constitute
personnel information regarding the employer/employee relationship, such as internal
evaluations; disciplinary reports or documentation; promotion, demotion or termination
information; or performance evaluations. Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-
096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243
P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150 N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.

Exception for letters and memoranda apply to entire document. — Where plaintiff
filed a complaint in district court seeking a writ of mandamus or a court order compelling
the livestock board (board) to disclose an investigative report produced by an outside
firm retained by the board to investigate allegations that a particular board inspector had
committed timesheet fraud by billing the board for his time while working at a second
job, and where plaintiff claimed that the board's custodian of records was required to
separate "matters of fact" from "matters of opinion" in the report and produce the
matters of fact for inspection, the district court did not err in granting the board's motion
for summary judgment, because the plain language of the exemption in NMSA 1978,
14-2-1(C) applies to letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files
in their entirety, and NMSA 1978, 14-2-9(A), by its plain language, does not require a
custodian of records to separate exempt from nonexempt information when an
exemption applies to a document as a whole, which § 14-2-1(C) does. Henry v.
Gauman, 2023-NMCA-078, cert. denied.
Documents that included privileged attorney-client communications and report
made for the purpose of determining whether to take disciplinary action against
an employee were exempt from disclosure. — Where plaintiff, a citizen journalist and
advocate, whose work focuses on estray and wild horses, matters within the jurisdiction
of the livestock board (board), sought disclosure of certain records related to wild
horses that included communications between the board's general counsel, attorneys in
the attorney general's office and certain board staff members and the disclosure of
records pertaining to a formal investigation of the deputy board director and the human
resources director for allegedly creating a hostile work environment and
misappropriating funds, and where the district court held that none of the four
documents at issue were exempt and ordered them disclosed, the district court erred in
finding that none of the documents were exempt from disclosure, because three of the
documents were confidential communications between lawyers representing the board
made for the purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services to the board
and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 14-2-1(G), and the
fourth document, a report of an investigation into alleged misconduct by an employee of
the board prepared for the purpose of determining whether to take disciplinary action
against that employee, fell within the matters of opinion in personnel files exemption
under § 14-2-1(C). Henry v. N.M. Livestock Bd., 2023-NMCA-082, cert. denied.

Communication in memorandum made to supply a basis for legal advice was
privileged and exempt from disclosure. — Where defendants filed an Inspection of
Public Records Request (IPRA) with the state land office (SLO) seeking documents
pertaining to a 2004 rockslide from state trust land onto the property later purchased by
defendants, and where the SLO's custodian of public records timely produced a
memorandum describing the SLO's field investigation into the damage caused by the
2004 rockslide, but redacted three lines of the memorandum it produced, invoking
attorney-client privilege, and where defendants filed an IPRA counterclaim against the
SLO's records custodian seeking disclosure of the three redacted lines, the district court
did not err in granting the SLO's motion for summary judgment, because the purpose of
the memorandum was to supply a basis for legal advice from the agency's general
counsel. The communication need not be made directly to a lawyer if it is a
communication made to a representative of the client, so long as the communication is
made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the
client. N.M. State Land Office v. Siddens & Dodson, LLP, 2026-NMCA-013.

Internal affairs investigation documents fell within "letters or memoranda which
are matters of opinion in personnel files" exception. — Where petitioner made an
Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to the City of Carlsbad, in relevant part,
for all internal affairs reports and investigative files, concerning as targets, or as
witnesses, fourteen city police officers identified by name, all communication records
relating to the processing and completion of the internal affairs investigation report
concerning petitioner, and city notices to city police officers of certain types of discipline
from 2015 through the date of the request, and where the city identified 3,777 pages of
documents responsive to petitioner’s request, but withheld 3,271 pages as exempt
under 14-2-1(C) NMSA 1978, and where the district court, after argument and
independently examining the documents in camera, found that the documents were
created for the purpose of conducting internal disciplinary proceedings and determined
that the documents were properly withheld and exempt pursuant to 14-2-1(C) NMSA
1978, the district court did not err in finding that the documents were exempt, because
internal affairs investigation documents that concern employee infractions or disciplinary
action are exempt from disclosure under IPRA. When a law enforcement officer’s
employer performs an internal affairs investigation to investigate violations of the
officer’s terms of employment for the purpose of determining whether infractions
occurred and whether disciplinary action should be taken, documents and reports
prepared in furtherance of the investigation fall squarely within the "letters and
memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files" exemption. Hall v. City of
Carlsbad, 2023-NMCA-042.

Citizen complaints concerning law enforcement officer. — Citizen complaints
regarding a law enforcement officer’s conduct while performing the officer’s duties as a
public official are not the type of opinion material this is excluded from public inspection
by Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of Section 14-2-1 NMSA 1978. Cox v. N.M. Dep't of
Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-096, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501, cert. granted, 2010-
NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146, cert. quashed, 2011-NMCERT-006, 150
N.M. 763, 266 P.3d 632.

Records of non-mandated university employment office. — Student complaints
against man who utilized the services of university employment office to obtain domestic
help by means of job postings were not "public records," since there was no legal
mandate for the operation of the employment office, nor was there an obligation of the
office to make or keep records of the complaints. Spadaro v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of
Regents, 1988-NMSC-064, 107 N.M. 402, 759 P.2d 189.

Personnel records of state university employees pertaining to illness may be
confidential. — Personnel records of employees of state university which pertain to
illness, injury, disability, inability to perform a job task and sick leave are considered
confidential under this section and not subject to release to the public, except by the
consent or waiver of the particular employee. State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-
NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.

Faculty salary matters are not public records until the culmination of the contract
between the board and the individual thought processes, or the offer of a contract, are
not such a public record as would require public inspection, so that the right to inspect
records of the board of regents of a state university on the subject of salary contract
negotiations before the task was completed should be denied. Sanchez v. Board of
Regents, 1971-NMSC-065, 82 N.M. 672, 486 P.2d 608.

Meaning of "as otherwise provided by law". — The exception in Subsection F of this
section incorporates an administrative regulation that effectuates the legislature's intent
in enacting the Public Employee Bargaining Act [now repealed]; any benefit to the public
from inspecting the representation petition filed under that act would be significantly
outweighed by a public employee's privacy interest. City of Las Cruces v. Public
Employee Labor Relations Bd., 1996-NMSC-024, 121 N.M. 688, 917 P.2d 451.

Records of plea negotiations in criminal cases are shielded from disclosure
under the Inspection of Public Records Act. — Where petitioners, pursuant to the
Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), submitted written requests to the first judicial
district attorney's office (FJDA) for emails relating to plea negotiations between the
FJDA's prosecutors and attorneys representing defendants charged with destroying an
historical monument in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as well as the defendants' statements of
admission, and where respondents provided petitioners with copies of the emails with
the content of the plea negotiation discussions redacted and did not provide petitioners
with the statements of admission, asserting that the records were attorney work product,
attorney-client privileged communications and confidential under IPRA, and were
privileged under 11-410 NMRA, the district court did not err in granting respondents'
motion for summary judgment, because 11-410 NMRA and the federal and New Mexico
constitutions provide a basis for withholding disclosure of the emails and admissions
under the "as otherwise provided by law" exception. Recognizing a privilege for plea
negotiations achieves the purposes of both 11-410 NMRA and IPRA, while ensuring
that district attorneys are able to fulfill their obligations consistent with their legislative
and constitutional roles in New Mexico's criminal justice system and protecting
defendants' rights to effective assistance of counsel and to enjoy the right to a public
trial, by an impartial jury. Borrego v. First Jud. Dist. Atty's Off., 2025-NMCA-012, cert.
denied.

Enabling statute alone was insufficient to grant authority to declare public
records exempt from disclosure. — Where plaintiff sought to enforce an inspection of
public records request to the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD) seeking any
and all records related to NMCD's use of force and its use of force policy, and where the
NMCD asserted that the documents were exempt based on the "as otherwise provided
by law" exemption set forth in 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, because NMCD's enabling statute
permitted it to protect inmates by designating documents as confidential and that such a
designation was sufficient to exempt the requested documents from production, and
where the district court partially granted and partially denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment, concluding that limited portions of the disputed records could
properly be withheld, but that the remaining portions of the use of force policy and
grievance reports were to be disclosed, the district court erred in determining that
certain parts of the use of force policy and internal grievance reports could be withheld
on the grounds that they were shown to be necessary for the administration of the
corrections department, because a general enabling statute alone is insufficient to grant
authority to declare public records exempt from disclosure of IPRA requirements. To
exempt public records from disclosure pursuant to 14-2-1(L) NMSA 1978, there must be
specific authorizing statutes that relate to the effects of disclosure and the confidentiality
of the information. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of N.M. v. N.M. Corr. Dep't., 2024-NMCA-
071, cert. granted.
Exception to public policy. — The legislature, in enacting 14-3-15.1 C NMSA 1978,
intended to permit state agencies to specifically limit public use of a certain type of
record, thereby creating an exception to the general public policy underlying the
Inspection of Public Records Act. Crutchfield v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-
NMCA-022, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273.

Jury lists. — A jury list is a public record and the media are entitled to inspect and
publish it. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261,
648 P.2d 300.

Information obtained via the warrant procedures of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act that is also required to be sealed under those
provisions is exempt from production under the Inspection of Public Records
Act's catchall exception. — Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), §§ 10-16F-1 to 10-16F-6 NMSA 1978, when the government obtains, via a
warrant or wiretap order, information that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant or
is not exculpatory to the target of the warrant, the information must be sealed, and, once
the investigation is complete, that information must be destroyed. Where records are
otherwise required to be sealed under the ECPA, the Inspection of Public Records Act
(IPRA) does not provide a state law basis for such documents to be unsealed via court
order. Therefore, documents required to be sealed under ECPA fall under IPRA's
catch-all exception, which provides that every person has a right to inspect public
records except as "otherwise provided by law." 2026 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-07.

Common-law concept. — The right of the public to inspect records which are in
custody of a public officer is a common-law concept and exists even without statute.
1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5933.

Public's right to inspection is not absolute. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.

Dissemination of information not necessarily included. — The right to inspect
public records does not necessarily include the right to disseminate the information
contained in those records. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.

Limited privacy of accused. — Section 29-10-4 NMSA 1978 protects the
confidentiality of information concerning the identity of a person who has been accused,
but not charged, with a crime only if that information has been collected in connection
with an investigation of, or otherwise relates to, another person who has been charged
with committing a crime. However, information in other records which identifies a person
accused but not charged with or arrested for a crime may be protected from public
disclosure under this section. Finally, even if it would otherwise be protected under
either statute, information about a person accused but not charged with a crime is open
to public inspection if it is contained in a document listed in 29-10-7 NMSA 1978. 1994
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-02.
Identity of individuals arrested or charged with crime not protected. — Neither the
Arrest Record Information Act [27-10-1 NMSA 1978] nor the Inspection of Public
Records Act [14-2-4 NMSA 1978] authorizes a law enforcement agency to protect the
identity of persons who have been arrested or charged with a crime. 1994 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 94-02.

No defense to invasion of privacy action. — The right of inspection is no defense to
an action for invasion of privacy based upon publication of matters which an individual
has the right to keep private. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.

Criterion for determining what information is public record is whether the
information is required by law to be kept or is necessarily kept in the discharge of a duty
imposed by law. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.

Provisions of section contemplate some exception to the Public Records Act, 14-3-
1 NMSA 1978 et seq. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-19.

Court opinions subject to inspection or copying. — The supreme court and the
court of appeals are required to make available their current and past opinions to the
public for inspection or for copying. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-14.

All records which do not deal with physical or mental examinations or medical
treatment of patients are public records. This type of record would include payrolls,
receipts and disbursements, etc. Any record which might fairly be called a record of
examination of a patient or a record of medical treatment of a patient of any institution is
not a public record and need not be submitted to public scrutiny. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 60-155.

Data compiled from case histories. — Case histories furnished by attending
physicians on individual patients from which mortality data is to be taken are confidential
records, but the data compiled from such case histories where the individual identity is
lost are not confidential. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-158.

Workers' compensation claim files. — The workers' compensation division maintains
workers' compensation claim files in the course of its statutory function of adjudicating
claims filed by workers, which makes them public records within the meaning of state
freedom of information laws. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. 88-16.

Medical records introduced into evidence. — To the extent any medical records that
otherwise are exempt from disclosure are introduced into evidence during the course of
a formal workers' compensation hearing which is open to the public, such records lose
their exempt status and may be inspected by the public. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-16.

Records of state penitentiary are public records and should be made available for
public inspection in accordance with the provisions of this section. 1951 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 51-5342.
Public school records. — Business records, expenditures, daily attendance records
and permanent records of an individual student's grades kept by the public schools are
public records. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.

Public school records. — Any citizen of this state has a right to examine the public
records of a school district when such records have been made a part of central records
of such school district. This right to inspection is spelled out by statute, and the
legislature has specified that the denial of such right of access is punishable as a
misdemeanor. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.

Instructional material used in public school. — Local school boards have no
authority to prohibit citizens of the state from inspecting instructional material used in a
public school within the district. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-37.

Immunization records of school children are available to the public. 1959 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 59-158.

Names and addresses of teachers employed in New Mexico school systems which
are contained in lists compiled by the department of education are public records. 1969
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-89.

Employee's file held by state personnel office. — Personnel actions, supervisor's
ratings, arrest records, letters of commendation or condemnation from the employing
agency, present employment history, the job application itself and educational history in
an employee's file held by the state personnel office is a matter of public record. 1968
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.

Salary information pertaining to state employee which is possessed by the state
personnel office is a matter of public record, since the state personnel director is
required by law to establish and maintain a roster for all state employees showing the
employee's pay rate, 10-9-12 NMSA 1978. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.

Job applicant's test score and position on eligibility list under 10-9-13 NMSA 1978,
possessed by the state personnel office, is a public record. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-
110.

Minutes of board of bar examiners meet the requirements of the definition of public
records, and, as such, are required under the common law adopted by this state and
also by this section, as amended, to be public records and, as such, are subject to the
inspection of the public. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5933.

Interstate stream commission. — Under the provisions of this section, any public
records reflecting the work or action of the interstate stream commission are subject to
public inspection. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 62-80.
County fair board. — Since the legislature has specifically granted counties the
authority to conduct county fairs, a county fair board is an arm of the county and its
records are county records which are subject to inspection as provided in this section
and former 14-2-2 NMSA 1978. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-109.

Data of personal nature used in educating pupils not subject. — Such records or
memoranda as may be kept by a teacher, or other school official, for informational
purposes on individual students, and which may contain data of a personal nature for
use in assisting teachers or school personnel in educating pupils, do not fall within the
classification of public records entitled to be scrutinized by the public. 1961 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 61-137.

Temporary or partial grades or records kept by individual teachers are not public
records. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137.

Portions of applicant's file may be classified as confidential by state personnel
board. — Not all records kept by a public officer are public records. The state personnel
board has, within statutory limits, a limited and restricted right to classify certain portions
of an applicant's file as confidential. Any portion which would be made available to the
state only on a confidential and restricted basis may be treated by the state personnel
board as confidential. This right, however, should be narrowly and restrictively applied.
1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-110.

Personnel file. — Under the rule-making authority of 10-9-10 and 10-9-13 NMSA 1978,
the state personnel board has a limited and restricted right to classify as confidential
certain portions of an individual's personnel file which would not otherwise be made
available to the state unless on a confidential or restricted basis. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 64-19.

Medical history and employment history solicited from applicant's previous
employer for 10-9-13 NMSA 1978 are not public records. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-
110.

Criminal complaints. — Complaints filed in J. P. (now magistrate) court by district
attorney and sheriff's office do not constitute public records when the person
complained against has not been arrested and is not subject to public inspection. 1947
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47-5074.

Information obtained under Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code.
— A district court clerk may not release the information identified in 43-1-19A NMSA
1978, governing disclosure under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
Code, without obtaining the consent of the person to whom that information pertains.
1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-75.

Human services department [health care authority department] records. — Since
other statutory provisions are made for inspection of records of the welfare department
(now health care authority department), they are open for inspection only in accordance
with 27-2-35. 1947 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47-5032.

Law reviews. — For 1984-88 survey of New Mexico administrative law, 19 N.M.L. Rev.
575 (1990).

For survey of 1988-89 Administrative Law, see 21 N.M.L. Rev. 481 (1991).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 37A Am. Jur. 2d Freedom of
Information Acts § 1 et seq. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 204; 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records
and Recording Laws §§ 12 to 31.

Enforceability by mandamus of right to inspect public records, 60 A.L.R. 1356, 169
A.L.R. 653.

Right to inspect motor vehicle records, 84 A.L.R.2d 1261.

Confidentiality of records as to recipients of public welfare, 54 A.L.R.3d 768.

Payroll records of individual government employees as subject to disclosure to public,
100 A.L.R.3d 699.

Validity, construction, and effect of state laws requiring public officials to protect
confidentiality of income tax returns or information, 1 A.L.R.4th 959.

What constitutes preliminary drafts or notes provided by or for state or local
governmental agency, or intra-agency memorandums, exempt from disclosure or
inspection under state freedom of information act, 26 A.L.R.4th 639.

Patient's right to disclosure of his or her own medical records under state freedom of
information act, 26 A.L.R.4th 701.

What are "records" of agency which must be made available under state freedom of
information act, 27 A.L.R.4th 680.

What constitutes an agency subject to application of state freedom of information act,
27 A.L.R.4th 742.

What constitutes "trade secrets" exempt from disclosure under state freedom of
information act, 27 A.L.R.4th 773.

What constitutes legitimate research justifying inspection of state or local public records
not open to inspection by general public, 40 A.L.R.4th 333.

State freedom of information act requests: right to receive information in particular
medium or format, 86 A.L.R.4th 786.
Use of Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552) as substitute for, or as means of,
supplementing discovery procedures available to litigants in federal civil, criminal, or
administrative proceedings, 57 A.L.R. Fed. 903.

What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of Information Act exemption
permitting nondisclosure of identity of confidential source and, in specified instances, of
confidential information furnished only by confidential source (5 USCS § 552(b)(7)(D)),
59 A.L.R. Fed. 550.

Waiver by federal government agency as affecting agency's right to claim exemption
from disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552(b)),
67 A.L.R. Fed. 595.

When are government records "similar files" exempt from disclosure under Freedom of
Information Act provision (5 USCS § 552(b)(6)) exempting certain personnel, medical,
and "similar" files, 106 A.L.R. Fed. 94.

What constitutes "final opinion" or "order" of federal administrative agency required to
be made available for public inspection and copying within meaning of 5 USCS §
552(a)(2)(A), 114 A.L.R. Fed. 287.

What constitutes "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from
person and privileged or confidential," exempt from disclosure under Freedom of
Information Act (5 USCS § 552 (b)(4)) (FOIA), 139 A.L.R. Fed. 225.

What are "records" of agency which must be made available under Freedom of
Information Act (5 USCA § 552(a)(3)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 571.

Actions brought under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 522 et seq. - supreme
court cases, 167 A.L.R. Fed. 545.

What are interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 168 A.L.R. Fed. 143.

What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of Information Act exemption
permitting nondisclosure of confidential source and, in some instances, of information
furnished by confidential source (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)), 171 A.L.R. Fed. 193.

76 C.J.S. Records § 48 et seq.