Each public body shall designate at least one custodian of public records who shall:
A. receive requests, including electronic mail or facsimile, to inspect public records;
B. respond to requests in the same medium, electronic or paper, in which the
request was made in addition to any other medium that the custodian deems
appropriate;
C. provide proper and reasonable opportunities to inspect public records;
D. provide reasonable facilities to make or furnish copies of the public records
during usual business hours; and
E. post in a conspicuous location at the administrative office and on the publicly
accessible web site, if any, of each public body a notice describing:
(1) the right of a person to inspect a public body's records;
(2) procedures for requesting inspection of public records, including the
contact information for the custodian of public records;
(3) procedures for requesting copies of public records;
(4) reasonable fees for copying public records; and
(5) the responsibility of a public body to make available public records for
inspection.
History: Laws 1993, ch. 258, § 4; 2001, ch. 204, § 1; 2011, ch. 182, § 2.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2011 amendment, effective June 17, 2011, in Subsection A, after "receive
requests" added "including electronic mail or facsimile"; added Subsection B and
relettered succeeding subsections; in Subsection E, after "administrative office", added
"and on the publicly accessible web site, if any"; and in Subsection E(2), added
"including the contact information for the custodian of public records" at the end of the
sentence.
The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, added Subsection D.
Department of public safety failed to provide inmate a proper and reasonable
opportunity to inspect public records. — Where plaintiff, a prisoner at the New
Mexico state penitentiary, sought to inspect department of public safety (DPS) records,
pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), §§ 14-2-1 through 14-2-12
NMSA 1978, connected to the investigation and prosecution that led to plaintiff's murder
conviction, and where DPS first submitted a $90.00 invoice which requested payment
prior to mailing the records, and, in a second response, informed plaintiff that physical
inspection of the records was available at the DPS offices during business hours, and
where plaintiff filed a complaint in district court, alleging that DPS unreasonably failed to
make responsive documents available to plaintiff and thus violated IPRA, and where the
district court granted summary judgment to DPS, finding that DPS's request for payment
for copies did not violate IPRA, and that defendants provided reasonable access for
physical inspection of public records by allowing physical inspection of the records at
the DPS offices, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of DPS,
because, although charging a fee for copies was proper and in conformance with IPRA,
the DPS's response that inspection was available at the DPS offices was unreasonable
under the circumstances when DPS knew that plaintiff was incarcerated. An offer to an
incarcerated person of an opportunity to visit a location outside the place of
incarceration during business hours is not reasonable under the circumstances and
does not align with the legislature's clearly asserted public police that to provide persons
with such information is an essential function of a representative government and an
integral part of the routine duties of public officers and employees. Franklin v. Dep't of
Pub. Safety, 2022-NMCA-058.
Transferring duty as custodian prohibited. — By reason of this section, the records
of the director of the department of public health (now secretary of health) are, in some
instances, not open to public inspection, and the duty of the custodian of those records,
to wit, the director of public health (now secretary), in the maintenance of the secrecy of
those records would prohibit him, the governor or any other person from transferring the
duty as custodian of the records to any other person. 1954 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 54-5943.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 37A Am. Jur. 2d Freedom of
Information Acts § 1 et seq.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case:
Pacheco v. Hudson, 415 P.3d 505 (N.M. 2018).
Pacheco v. Hudson, 415 P.3d 505 (N.M. 2018).
· cites it 4× “See § 14-2-7 (providing that each public body shall designate at least one custodian of public records to receive and respond to IPRA requests).”
Pacheco v. Hudson, 2018-NMSC-022.
· cites it 4× “See § 14-2-7 (providing that each public body shall designate at least one custodian of public records to receive and respond to IPRA requests).”
Derringer v. State, 2003-NMCA-073, 68 P.3d 961.
· cites it 2× “{11} By requiring that each public body have a public records custodian, see NMSA 1978, § 14-2-7 (2001), and requiring compliance immediately, but no later than fifteen days, see NMSA 1978, § 14-2-8(D) (1993), the legislature’s focus was to provide prompt compliance.”
Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, 556 P.3d 559 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Section 14-2-7(A), (B). “Any person wishing to inspect public records may submit an oral or written request to the custodian.”
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf., No. A-1-CA-38060 (N.M. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
· cites it 7× “amend the complaint to include claims for statutory and constitutional violations. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and he appealed.”
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf. (N.M. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, 14 and he appealed. 15 DISCUSSION 16 {4} IPRA requires public records custodians to “provide proper and reasonable 17 opportunities to inspect public records.”
Franklin v. N.M. Corr. Dep't, No. A-1-CA-38848 (N.M. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
· cites it 3× “The request must include “the name, address and telephone number of the person seeking access to the records and shall identify the records sought with reasonable particularity.” Section 14-2-8(C).”
Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Section 14-2-7(A), (B). “Any 19 person wishing to inspect public records may submit an oral or written request to the 20 custodian.”
Encinas v. Sanders, No. 1:20-cv-01005 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2021).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA § 14-2-7 (“[e]ach public body shall designate at least one custodian of public records who shall” receive and respond to requests).”
Filippi v. Wallin (N.M. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “¶ 57 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also § 14-2-7 (imposing duties of compliance with IPRA on a designated “custodian of public records”); § 14-2-11(C) (providing that the designated custodian “is subject to an action to enforce the…”
Newsome v. Centurion Corr. Healthcare of N.M., LLC, No. A-1-CA-41136 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2025).
· cites it 2× “It would be absurd for this Court to preclude enforcement of rights under IPRA against a private entity that asserts it is not a public body, and thus does not need to designate a records custodian, because an IPRA plaintiff does not name a records custodian.”
N.M. Stat. § 14-2-7(A): 3 cases
Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, 556 P.3d 559 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024).
“Section 14-2-7(A), (B). “Any person wishing to inspect public records may submit an oral or written request to the custodian.”
Filippi v. Wallin (N.M. Ct. App. 2020).
“¶ 57 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also § 14-2-7 (imposing duties of compliance with IPRA on a designated “custodian of public records”); § 14-2-11(C) (providing that the designated custodian “is subject to an action to enforce the…”
N.M. Stat. § 14-2-7(C): 4 cases
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf., No. A-1-CA-38060 (N.M. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
“amend the complaint to include claims for statutory and constitutional violations. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and he appealed.”
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf. (N.M. Ct. App. 2022).
“The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, 14 and he appealed. 15 DISCUSSION 16 {4} IPRA requires public records custodians to “provide proper and reasonable 17 opportunities to inspect public records.”
Franklin v. N.M. Corr. Dep't, No. A-1-CA-38848 (N.M. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
“The request must include “the name, address and telephone number of the person seeking access to the records and shall identify the records sought with reasonable particularity.” Section 14-2-8(C).”
N.M. Stat. § 14-2-7(D): 2 cases
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf. (N.M. Ct. App. 2022).
“The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, 14 and he appealed. 15 DISCUSSION 16 {4} IPRA requires public records custodians to “provide proper and reasonable 17 opportunities to inspect public records.”
Franklin v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Saf., No. A-1-CA-38060 (N.M. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
“amend the complaint to include claims for statutory and constitutional violations. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and he appealed.”
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.