City responds to demand for Payne’s records

In response to a demand letter from a First Amendment attorney, the city of Maricopa has provided InMaricopa copies of past internal investigations involving police Lt. Willie Payne, who has been on paid administrative leave since June 1.

Payne, who earns $85,000 a year, was hired in 2007 by the Maricopa Police Department after working for more than 30 years at the Pinal County Sheriff's Office.

In mid-September, InMaricopa requested records of any and all past disciplinary actions involving Payne. The city responded that state law prohibited it from releasing the documents, but did not cite any specific laws.

InMaricopa believed the city was violating the state’s open records laws and Paul F. Eckstein, an attorney for the Arizona First Amendment Coalition, agreed.

In a letter emailed to Public Information Officer LaTricia Woods last Thursday, Eckstein wrote: “You claim Arizona law prohibits you from releasing materials relating to an ongoing investigation of a police officer. Even if that were true (which it is not), nothing prohibits you from releasing public records of investigations that have been completed and closed or Lt. Payne’s photograph.”

Eckstein demanded that by noon yesterday the city release all past internal investigations involving Payne, a photograph of Payne for publication and the reason why Payne is currently on leave.

Eckstein is a partner in the Phoenix office of the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP, which has been counsel to the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona’s media hotline for more than 30 years.

The city released the past investigations and a photograph but excluded information on the current investigation, citing a section of the open records statute that makes an exception for open investigations by an employer on a police or probation officer. Woods said there is no way to determine how long the investigation will take.

This is not the first time in recent weeks InMaricopa has requested help from the First Amendment Coalition to obtain public records from the city.

In August, InMaricopa had requested a photograph of Sgt. Mary Turner to publish with its story about the findings of complaints Turner had made against the police department. Turner had alleged she was being treated unfairly because she was an African-American female and a member of a police union. The city determined her allegations were not supported by evidence.

Woods wrote in her response to InMaricopa’s request for the photograph: “The City does not believe that the event that you are focusing your story on is a newsworthy event, as it is in regards to a complaint involving Sgt. Turner’s employment. If you believe the City does not fully understand the contents of your story, please provide an explanation of why you believe this is a newsworthy event.”

Eckstein said the police do not get to determine whether an event is newsworthy.

“The story about Sgt. Turner’s charges and the ensuing investigation are clearly a ‘newsworthy event’ because the public has a keen interest in learning about the discriminatory practices of governmental agencies and particularly agencies charged with enforcing the law,” Eckstein wrote to city attorney Denis Fitzgibbons. “To argue that this is not a newsworthy event speaks volumes about the lengths to which the Maricopa Police Department will go to shield it own misconduct from the public.”

The city ultimately refused to provide InMaricopa a photograph of Turner on the grounds that publishing her picture could put the officer at risk of physical harm by a suspect whose family members lived in the area. Turner had been involved in the indictment of the suspect, according to Tina L. Vannucci, an attorney who works in Fitzgibbons’ office in Casa Grande.

Public records in Arizona are open to everyone, not just journalists. Citizens have access to public records because the public owns them — public officials are merely the custodians.

Arizona Public Records Law requires that public documents be open for inspection during regular office hours, and public agencies are required to promptly furnish the requested information. Failure to respond in a timely manner is the equivalent to denying the request. For more information, visit www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/public_records.asp

According to the Arizona First Amendment Coalition, public agencies such as law enforcement frequently tell the media they can’t release a document involving something that’s an “ongoing investigation.” This is rarely a valid reason to withhold information from the public. In Cox v. Tom Collins, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the government should disclose information in an ongoing investigation unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. The ruling states that government needs to have a clear, specific and reasonable reason why disclosure of information would be harmful to an individual or the public.

Click here for related story.