N.M. Stat. § 14-2-6 (2026)

As used in the Inspection of Public Records Act:

    A. "custodian" means any person responsible for the maintenance, care or keeping
of a public body's public records, regardless of whether the records are in that person's
actual physical custody and control;

     B. "file format" means the internal structure of an electronic file that defines the way
it is stored and used;

    C. "information technology systems" means computer hardware, storage media,
networking equipment, physical devices, infrastructure, processes and code, firmware,
software and ancillary products and services, including:

       (1)    systems design and analysis;
      (2)    development or modification of hardware or solutions used to create,
process, store, secure or exchange electronic data;

       (3)      information storage and retrieval systems;

       (4)      voice, radio, video and data communication systems;

       (5)      network, hosting and cloud-based systems;

       (6)      simulation and testing;

       (7)      interactions between a user and an information system; and

       (8)      user and system credentials;

   D. "inspect" means to review all public records that are not excluded in Section 14-
2-1 NMSA 1978;

   E. "person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association or
entity;

   F. "protected personal identifier information" means:

       (1)      all but the last four digits of a:

             (a) taxpayer identification number;

             (b) financial account number;

             (c) credit or debit card number; or

             (d) driver's license number;

       (2)      all but the year of a person's date of birth;

       (3)      a social security number; and

        (4)     with regard to a nonelected employee of a public body in the context of the
person's employment, the employee's nonbusiness home street address, but not the
city, state or zip code;

    G. "public body" means the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state and
local governments and all advisory boards, commissions, committees, agencies or
entities created by the constitution or any branch of government that receives any public
funding, including political subdivisions, special taxing districts, school districts and
institutions of higher education;
    H. "public records" means all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes,
photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or
characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of
any public body and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required
by law to be created or maintained; and

  I. "trade secret" means trade secret as defined in Subsection D of Section 57-3A-2
NMSA 1978.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 258, § 3; 2011, ch. 134, § 3; 2011, ch. 181, § 1; 2011, ch. 182,
§ 1; 2013, ch. 117, § 1; 2013, ch. 214, § 2; 2018, ch. 61, § 1; 2023, ch. 67, § 4.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2023 amendment, effective March 30, 2023, defined "information technology
systems" and revised the definition of "protected personal identifier information"; added
a new Subsection C, and redesignated former Subsections C through H as Subsections
D through I, respectively; and in Subsection F, added a new Subparagraph F(1)(c),
redesignated former Subparagraph F(1)(c) as Subparagraph F(1)(d), and added
Paragraph F(4).

The 2018 amendment, effective May 16, 2018, added the definition of "trade secret" as
used in the Inspection of Public Records Act; and added Subsection H.

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, added the definition of "protected
personal identifier information", and relettered the succeeding subsections.

The 2011 amendment, effective June 17, 2011, added the definition of "file format" in
Subsection B; and relettered the succeeding subsections accordingly.

A private actor that contracts with a governmental entity to perform a public
function is subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act. State ex rel. Toomey v.
City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.

Factors to determine whether a private entity is subject to the Inspection of
Public Records Act. — Courts should consider the following factors in deciding
whether private entities are subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act: (1) the level
of public funding; (2) commingling of funds; (3) whether the activity was conducted on
publicly owned property; (4) whether the services contracted for are an integral part of
the agency’s chosen decision-making process; (5) whether the private entity is
performing a governmental function or a function which the public agency otherwise
would perform; (6) the extent of the public agency’s involvement with, regulation of, or
control over the private entity; (7) whether the private entity was created by the public
agency; (8) whether the public agency has a substantial financial interest in the private
entity; and (9) for whose benefit the private entity is functioning. State ex rel. Toomey v.
City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.
A private entity was subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act. — Where the
municipality acquired a public access channel and adopted an ordinance that required
the municipality to be responsible for management of the access channel and to adopt
rules, regulations and procedures for the use of the access channel; the municipality
contracted with a private entity to operate the access channel; the operation agreement
required the private entity to operate the access channel in a manner that was
consistent with the ordinance; the municipality funded the private entity with an annual
grant that was released to the private entity when it gave the municipality an annual
activity plan and budget; the private entity was required to account for how the funds
were spent; for a nominal rent, the municipality leased the basement of the municipal
civic center to the private entity to use as the public access television center; the
municipality had the right to terminate the operating agreement without cause; the
operating agreement identified the private entity as an independent contractor and
stated that no principal or agent relationship existed between the municipality and the
private entity; and the municipality denied plaintiff’s request for recordings of city
commission meetings that the private entity had recorded and played on the access
channel, the private entity was acting on behalf of the municipality in its role as the
access channel operational organization, and the recordings of city commission
meetings made by the private entity were public records subject to inspection. State ex
rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, 287 P.3d 364.

Settlement agreement documents were public records. — Where respondent, a
private prison medical services provider that provided contracted healthcare services for
the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD), negotiated and settled at least fifty-
nine civil claims alleging instances of improper care and/or sexual assault of inmates,
and where petitioners submitted written requests pursuant to the Inspection of Public
Records Act seeking all settlement documents involving respondent in its role as
medical services contractor for NMCD, the district court did not err in issuing a writ of
mandamus ordering respondent to produce the settlement agreements and pay
petitioners' reasonable attorney fees, because the settlement agreements were created
as a result of respondent's public function acting on behalf of NMCD. Third-party
settlement agreements resulting from medical care provided under a contract with the
state are public documents subject to disclosure. N.M. Found. for Open Gov't v.
Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, cert. denied.

Definition of "public records" in Public Records Act (14-3-1 to 14-3-16 NMSA
1978) does not apply to section, the Inspection of Public Records Act. State ex rel.
Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, 90 N.M. 790, 568 P.2d 1236.

"Relate to public business" construed. — Where plaintiff submitted an IPRA request
to the New Mexico department of game and fish (NMDGF) seeking the names and
email address given by all applicants for hunting licenses in 2015 and 2016, which
NMDGF determined amounted to over 300,000 entries, and where NMDGF concluded
that plaintiff's request sought personal identifier information that did not constitute a
public record subject to disclosure and agreed to produce only the applicants' names,
the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because
IPRA's definition of "relating to public business" means that the requested records are
connected to governmental affairs or official actions by or on behalf of public bodies,
and therefore the email addresses NMDGF collected in connection with its licensing
system constitute public records that are subject to disclosure. Dunn v. N.M. Dep't of
Game & Fish, 2020-NMCA-026.

IPRA catchall "as otherwise provided by law" exception incorporates regulations
having the force of law. — 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.

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.

Term "public records" is intended to include all papers or memoranda in the
possession of public officers which are required by law to be kept by them. 1966 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 66-131.
Public records. — Elements essential to constitute a public record are that it be made
by a public officer and that the officer be authorized by law to make it. 1963 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 63-55.

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.