Utah Department of Administrative Services

Division of Archives & Records Service

State Records Committee Appeal 99-05

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

ERNEST CHACON, Appellant vs.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 99-05

Appellant, Ernest Chacon, sought an order of the Committee requiring Appellee to supply him a copy of the portions of the investigative report of a certain 1988 incident at the Utah State Prison that reflect what Mr. Chacon told the investigators of the incident about the incident. Appellee had denied Mr. Chacon's request for this record. The appeal was heard by the Records Committee on September 8, 1999. Appellant appeared in his own behalf by telephone, and presented testimony and argument. Appellee was represented by Edward Kingsford, and presented testimony and argument. Both parties had presented written documentation in advance of the hearing and Appellee brought certain disputed records to the hearing for review of the Committee only.

The State Records Committee, having reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties and having heard the testimony and argument of the parties, now issues the following decision and order:

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

The Appeal is denied. The requested record is properly classified as "protected" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(9)(e), (10) and (12). Further, having reviewed the disputed records and upon balancing the interests in favor of disclosure against the interests in favor of non-disclosure under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-403(11)(b), the Committee concludes, still, that the record requested should not be disclosed. It is noted incidentally that it became clear at the hearing that Appellant Chacon's statements to the investigators of the incident provided no basis for seeing Mr. Chacon as an informant or "jail house snitch."

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is ordered that Appellant's request for the indicated record is denied.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

The terms of this section titled "Right to Appeal" are required by statute to be included in the Order. Either party may appeal this Decision and Order to District Court. The petition for review must be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order. The petition for judicial review must be a complaint. The complaint and the appeals process are governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404 and 63-2-502(7). The Court is required to make its decision de novo. In order to protect rights of appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

Entered this 13th day of September, 1999.

Betsy L. Ross,
Chair State Records Committee