Summary
The Utah Supreme Court held that Brent Young's petition for judicial review under the Government Records Access and Management Act was timely because the sheriff's later written response triggered a thirty-day filing period. The court held that the district court had authority under GRAMA to order disclosure of disciplinary and investigative records, but reversed to the extent the order required disclosure of unappealed charges protected by statute. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded, and denied Young's request for appellate attorney fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Young's petition for judicial review of the Sheriff's denial of his records request was timely under GRAMA.
- Whether the district court had authority under GRAMA to order disclosure of the requested records.
- Whether Utah Code section 17-30-19 prohibited disclosure of unappealed charges contained in the requested records.
- Whether Young was entitled to attorney fees for defending the appeal as frivolous.
Holdings
- A records requester whose chief administrative officer responds to an appeal may file a petition for judicial review within thirty days after that response, even if the response was made after the statutory five-day period and the requester could otherwise have relied on the deemed-denial provision.
- GRAMA section 63-2-404, rather than section 63-2-202(7), authorized the district court to review the County's records-access decision and order disclosure.
- The district court could not order disclosure of unappealed charges as narrowly defined by Utah Code section 17-30-19, because that statute expressly prohibits making such charges public without the charged officer's consent.
- Young was not entitled to attorney fees under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 33(a) because the County's appeal had a reasonable legal and factual basis and was not frivolous.
Key quotations
“We so hold based on our reading of the plain language of section 63-2-404(2)(b) which, by including the word "or" between the three alternative time periods for filing, clearly allows any of the three alternatives to govern if applicable in a particular case.” (52 P.3d at 1243)
“Section 63-2-202(7) does not, however, specifically confer authority upon a court to order the disclosure of such records.” (52 P.3d at 1245)
“Young's petition for judicial review of the Sheriff's denial of his records appeal was timely filed with the district court pursuant to section 63-2-404(2)(b)(i) of the Utah Code.” (52 P.3d at 1246)
Factual background
Brent D. Young was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department until his termination on January 14, 2000, allegedly arising from firearm use and sexual innuendo. In preparing to appeal his termination, Young requested disciplinary records and investigative files concerning other deputies investigated or disciplined for similar firearm-related or sexually inappropriate conduct. The County denied the request, and the Sheriff denied Young's administrative appeal.
Procedural history
Young, a former Salt Lake County deputy sheriff, requested records concerning investigations and discipline of other deputies for similar conduct. After the County and Sheriff denied the request, Young petitioned the third district court for judicial review. The district court granted Young summary judgment, ordered disclosure subject to redactions, and later entered an amended final order concerning attorney fees. The County appealed; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court was instructed to modify its order to preclude disclosure of any unappealed charges as narrowly defined in Utah Code section 17-30-19. The remainder of the disclosure order was affirmed.