Utah Department of Administrative Services

Division of Archives & Records Service

State Records Committee Appeal 1998-01

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

KSL-TV, Petitioner vs.

JUAB COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER 98-01

Petitioner, KSL-TV, seeks an order requiring Respondent to supply the jail booking photograph of James Penrod, a person held by Respondent in the course of its official duties.

Petitioner presented written documentation and argument and presented argument at the hearing held February 17, 1998.

Respondent submitted written documentation and argument, and presented testimony and argument at the hearing, being represented by David O. Leavitt, Juab County Attorney. The Committee issues the following decision and order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

The appeal is granted. The parties agree that the requested photograph is a "record" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-10.3(18)(a). As a record it is "public" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-201(2) "unless otherwise expressly prohibited by statute." Here, there is no such express prohibition, and therefore the requested record is public and must be supplied to Petitioner.

Respondent has cited and argued Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(9)(10) and (12) (1997) as provisions that would render the requested record "protected" rather than "public." Having considered those statutory provisions and Respondent's testimony and argument relative thereto, the Committee concludes that these provisions do not apply to change the category of the record from "public" to "protected."

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is ordered that Petitioner's request for access to the requested record is granted.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

Either party may appeal this Decision and Order to district court. The petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of this order. The petition for judicial review must be a complaint. The complaint and the appeal's process are governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404 (1997) and 63-2-507(7) (1997). The Court is required to make its decision de novo. In order to protect its rights of appeal, a party may wish to seek advise from an attorney.

Entered this 20th day of February, 1998.

Max Evans,
CHAIR, State Records Committee