N.M. Stat. § 14-2-9 (2026)

A. Requested public records containing information that is exempt and nonexempt
from disclosure shall be separated by the custodian prior to inspection, and the
nonexempt information shall be made available for inspection. If necessary to preserve
the integrity of computer data or the confidentiality of exempt information contained in a
database, a partial printout of data containing public records or information may be
furnished in lieu of an entire database. Exempt information in an electronic document
shall be removed along with the corresponding metadata prior to disclosure by utilizing
methods or redaction tools that prevent the recovery of exempt information from a
redacted electronic document.

     B. A custodian shall provide a copy of a public record in electronic format if the
public record is available in electronic format and an electronic copy is specifically
requested. However, a custodian is only required to provide the electronic record in the
file format in which it exists at the time of the request.

   C. A custodian:

       (1)     may charge reasonable fees for copying the public records, unless a
different fee is otherwise prescribed by law;

     (2)    shall not charge fees in excess of one dollar ($1.00) per printed page for
documents eleven inches by seventeen inches in size or smaller;

       (3)    may charge the actual costs associated with downloading copies of public
records to a computer disk or storage device, including the actual cost of the computer
disk or storage device;
      (4)   may charge the actual costs associated with transmitting copies of public
records by mail, electronic mail or facsimile;

      (5)     may require advance payment of the fees before making copies of public
records;

       (6)    shall not charge a fee for the cost of determining whether any public
record is subject to disclosure; and

       (7)    shall provide a receipt, upon request.

   D. Nothing in this section regarding the provision of public data in electronic format
shall limit the ability of the custodian to engage in the sale of data as authorized by
Sections 14-3-15.1 and 14-3-18 NMSA 1978, including imposing reasonable restrictions
on the use of the database and the payment of a royalty or other consideration.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 258, § 6; 2011, ch. 181, § 2; 2011, ch. 182, § 3; 2013, ch. 117,
§ 2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2013 amendment, effective April 2, 2013, expanded the authority to sell data; and
in Subsection D, after "Sections 14-3-15.1", added "and 14-3-18".

The 2011 amendment, effective June 17, 2011.added the last sentence in Subsection
A; added Subsection B and relettered the succeeding subsection; in Subsection C,
added Subparagraphs (3) and (4), and renumbered the succeeding subparagraphs; and
added a new Subsection D.

Right subject to reasonable restrictions and conditions. — The right to inspect
public records commonly carries with it the right to make copies thereof, subject,
however, to reasonable restrictions and conditions imposed as to their use, reasonable
regulations as to appropriate times when and places where they may be inspected and
copied and such reasonable supervision by the custodian thereof as may be necessary
for their safety and as will secure equal opportunity for all to inspect and copy them.
Ortiz v. Jaramillo, 1971-NMSC-041, 82 N.M. 445, 483 P.2d 500.

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.

Recording Act governs real property records request. — Where plaintiff corporation
sought all of Lea county's real property image and index records, the production
provisions of the Recording Act, 14-8-1 through 14-8-17 NMSA 1978, rather than those
of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 through 14-2-12 NMSA 1978,
governed the county's obligation in responding to plaintiff's records request, because
IPRA creates a records inspection scheme of general application granting, with various
exceptions, a right to inspect public records of this state, and the Recording Act more
specifically provides a mechanism by which prospective purchasers can examine real
property records, and places on county clerks associated duties to make these records
available and searchable for the public. TexasFile LLC v. Board of Cty. Comm'rs of Lea
Cty., 2019-NMCA-038, cert. denied.

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 § 14-2-1 NMSA 1978 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).

Right to make copies. — The right to inspect or examine public records commonly
includes the right of making copies thereof as the right to inspect would be valueless
without this correlative right. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-170.

It is permissible for an individual or a company such as an abstractor to photocopy voter
registrations in the offices of the county clerks so long as adequate precautions are
taken to ensure the integrity of the records and to preserve their availability for
inspection by others. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-170.
Charges not to be imposed. — A charge of $25.00 per month may not be imposed by
counties upon abstract and title companies for such facilities as lights, telephone and
janitorial services to reimburse the counties therefor in connection with abstract and title
companies inspecting and copying public records, because this practice amounts to a
denial of the right to inspect records. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-102.

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

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.

Reimbursement or other consideration to courts for copying costs. — The
supreme court and the court of appeals should require reasonable reimbursement for
the costs incurred by them for copying opinions for the public or for retrieving their
opinions for inspection. However, such a charge need not be made in those cases in
which the courts receive some other form of consideration in return for supplying their
opinions to private individuals or enterprises. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-14.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 37A Am. Jur. 2d Freedom of
Information Acts § 434 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.