Columns
Editor's NotesRequirements not mandatory —or are they?
By James Bennett
The Pima County Sheriff’s Department says it hardly ever receives a complaint about public records.
It takes pride in being responsive to customers, so my column two weeks ago about being required to provide my name, photo ID and reason for obtaining a report struck a nerve in the Sheriff’s office.
I told Sheriff’s personnel at the time they were in violation of the state’s Open Records Act, in my opinion, and filed a complaint with the Arizona ombudsman/citizen’s aide.
The Sheriff’s Department was interested in mitigating my concerns. Lt. Deanna Coultas came to Green Valley on Thursday to review the Sheriff’s policies, address my apprehensions and ask what I would do differently, if it were up to me.
My problem is not with the media getting information. The Sheriff has a full-time staff of public information officers to assist reporters. I am concerned about the public and its inability to access information on demand. I think it creates the impression law enforcement has something to hide.
To ensure access to reports, I told her the Sheriff’s Department should eliminate the requirement to provide a name and reason for obtaining a report. It’s none of the Sheriff’s business why you want the report.
Even though the application form explicitly says all required fields must be completed, and even though records personnel would not even talk to people before they filled out the information, Coultas said nothing’s mandatory.
“The Records Request Form that the Sheriff’s Department uses is similar to those used by almost all other law enforcement agencies in the area,” Coultas said. “It is not required, however, and a report can be gained without filling out the form. It is merely used as a tool to facilitate the process.
“Records will be provided to people who do not provide a picture ID, or an address or a variety of other information,” she said. “The only information that is required when someone requests a report is a name, so we know who to contact when the report is ready, the case number (or other identifying information about the event), so we know which report they want, and a statement that the record is not being requested for commercial purposes.”
I also think the Sheriff goes too far in redacting information, acting as a censor. The law provides for redacting of personal information such as Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. But it does not provide an exception for the department to black out names of suspects or victims.
Joanne MacDonnell, Arizona’s deputy ombudsman, spoke with Sean Holguin, attorney for the Sheriff’s office, last week in response to my request. Holguin said there should be no requirement for an ID, but defended the application as a way to route and process information.
“Once an application is received, it is routed to a detective with jurisdiction to review the request,” MacDonnel wrote in a summary of her conversation with Holguin. “The detective determines if the record is subject to a public record request and redacts what is appropriate (e.g., name of silent witness caller), if anything.
“After that, the officer forwards the request to Mr. Holguin who double checks the redaction or any other judgment call. Once approved, other Sheriff staff contact the requester and tell him/her their record is ready for pick up. If someone does not want to go along with an application, they must keep calling back to see if their record is ready.”
After talking with the Sheriff’s lieutenant and the deputy ombudsman, I felt temporarily better about the process and the prospects of getting a report without the public compromising its constitutional rights. I decided to test the system again, to see if my earlier experience would be repeated.
I walked into the Sheriff’s main office in Tucson and picked up a records application form. I provided a name and case number from an innocuous stolen-car report we already had in the newspaper office. I declined to provide a phone number and address. I said I wanted the report for research.
The clerk’s first question: “May I see a photo ID?”
When I declined, she hesitated and came back a few minutes later, saying she could not provide the report. It needed to be reviewed, even though the only information redacted on the earlier report was the victim’s name. I gave her my phone number. She said I would be contacted “about a week from now.”
The next person in line turned in his paperwork seconds later. The first question: “May we see a picture ID?” Second question: “What’s your relation to this case?”
The system works fine for the Sheriff and his records staff, I concluded. It’s just a cumbersome and unfortunate dance for everyone else.
Until the public complains and demands unfiltered access to documents and reports, nothing is going to change.
Contact James Bennett at jbennett@gvnews.com. Respond with a Letter to the Editor by e-mailing letters@gvnews.com. Comment on this column online at www.gvnews.com.
It takes pride in being responsive to customers, so my column two weeks ago about being required to provide my name, photo ID and reason for obtaining a report struck a nerve in the Sheriff’s office.
I told Sheriff’s personnel at the time they were in violation of the state’s Open Records Act, in my opinion, and filed a complaint with the Arizona ombudsman/citizen’s aide.
The Sheriff’s Department was interested in mitigating my concerns. Lt. Deanna Coultas came to Green Valley on Thursday to review the Sheriff’s policies, address my apprehensions and ask what I would do differently, if it were up to me.
My problem is not with the media getting information. The Sheriff has a full-time staff of public information officers to assist reporters. I am concerned about the public and its inability to access information on demand. I think it creates the impression law enforcement has something to hide.
To ensure access to reports, I told her the Sheriff’s Department should eliminate the requirement to provide a name and reason for obtaining a report. It’s none of the Sheriff’s business why you want the report.
Even though the application form explicitly says all required fields must be completed, and even though records personnel would not even talk to people before they filled out the information, Coultas said nothing’s mandatory.
“The Records Request Form that the Sheriff’s Department uses is similar to those used by almost all other law enforcement agencies in the area,” Coultas said. “It is not required, however, and a report can be gained without filling out the form. It is merely used as a tool to facilitate the process.
“Records will be provided to people who do not provide a picture ID, or an address or a variety of other information,” she said. “The only information that is required when someone requests a report is a name, so we know who to contact when the report is ready, the case number (or other identifying information about the event), so we know which report they want, and a statement that the record is not being requested for commercial purposes.”
I also think the Sheriff goes too far in redacting information, acting as a censor. The law provides for redacting of personal information such as Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. But it does not provide an exception for the department to black out names of suspects or victims.
Joanne MacDonnell, Arizona’s deputy ombudsman, spoke with Sean Holguin, attorney for the Sheriff’s office, last week in response to my request. Holguin said there should be no requirement for an ID, but defended the application as a way to route and process information.
“Once an application is received, it is routed to a detective with jurisdiction to review the request,” MacDonnel wrote in a summary of her conversation with Holguin. “The detective determines if the record is subject to a public record request and redacts what is appropriate (e.g., name of silent witness caller), if anything.
“After that, the officer forwards the request to Mr. Holguin who double checks the redaction or any other judgment call. Once approved, other Sheriff staff contact the requester and tell him/her their record is ready for pick up. If someone does not want to go along with an application, they must keep calling back to see if their record is ready.”
After talking with the Sheriff’s lieutenant and the deputy ombudsman, I felt temporarily better about the process and the prospects of getting a report without the public compromising its constitutional rights. I decided to test the system again, to see if my earlier experience would be repeated.
I walked into the Sheriff’s main office in Tucson and picked up a records application form. I provided a name and case number from an innocuous stolen-car report we already had in the newspaper office. I declined to provide a phone number and address. I said I wanted the report for research.
The clerk’s first question: “May I see a photo ID?”
When I declined, she hesitated and came back a few minutes later, saying she could not provide the report. It needed to be reviewed, even though the only information redacted on the earlier report was the victim’s name. I gave her my phone number. She said I would be contacted “about a week from now.”
The next person in line turned in his paperwork seconds later. The first question: “May we see a picture ID?” Second question: “What’s your relation to this case?”
The system works fine for the Sheriff and his records staff, I concluded. It’s just a cumbersome and unfortunate dance for everyone else.
Until the public complains and demands unfiltered access to documents and reports, nothing is going to change.
Contact James Bennett at jbennett@gvnews.com. Respond with a Letter to the Editor by e-mailing letters@gvnews.com. Comment on this column online at www.gvnews.com.
Copyright © 2010 - Green Valley News and Sun