29
9. Books of accounts of municipalities, Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. 56-8;
10. A county sheriff’s “offense report” of an assault by a prisoner in the county
jail, Carlson v. Pima Cty., 141 Ariz. 487, 491, 687 P.2d 1242, 1246 (1984);
11. A draft or unfinished police report, Lake v. City of Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472,
483, ¶ 36, 207 P.3d 725, 736 (2009), vacated in part on other grounds, 222 Ariz.
547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009);
12. Petitions for land annexation by cities, Moorehead v. Arnold, 130 Ariz. 503,
505, 637 P.2d 305, 307 (App. 1981);
13. Autopsy reports prepared by county medical examiners, Schoeneweis v.
Hamner, 223 Ariz. 169, 173, ¶¶ 10-11, 221 P.3d 48, 52 (App. 2009); Star
Publ’g Co. v. Parks, 178 Ariz. 604, 605, 875 P.2d 837, 838 (App. 1993); Ariz.
Att’y Gen. Op. I88-130;
14. Reports of industrial injuries, Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I86-090;
15. Notice of claim that high school student’s attorney filed with the school
district, where student’s identity and medical history could be redacted. Phoenix
Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis, 215 Ariz. 268, 272, ¶ 17, 159 P.3d 578, 582 (App.
2007);
16. Disciplinary records of public employees, including the employee responses
to disciplinary actions, A.R.S. § 39-128(A); 17. E-mail communications and
computer backup tapes containing all documents for a county attorney’s office
may be public records, see Star Publ’g Co. v. Pima Cty. Attorney’s Office, 181
Ariz. 432, 434, 891 P.2d 899, 901 (App. 1994) (County failed to provide
specific factual basis to support argument that records were protected from
disclosure);
18. Metadata embedded within electronically-maintained records. Lake v. City of
Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 551, ¶ 12, 218 P.3d 1004, 1008 (2009);
19. Crime scene videotapes. KPNX-TV v. Superior Court, 183 Ariz. 589, 592-
93, 905 P.2d 598, 601-02 (App. 1995).
6.4 Denying Public Inspection.
Although there is a presumption in favor of access to public records, this
presumption may be outweighed by legitimate government considerations of
privacy and the best interests of the State. See Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. No.
48 v. KPNX Broad. Co., 191 Ariz. 297, 300, ¶ 9, 955 P.2d 534, 537 (1998)
(confidentiality, privacy, or other “best interests of the state” can outweigh the
public’s right of inspection under the Public Records Law, but the State has the
burden of overcoming the legal presumption favoring disclosure); United States
v. Loughner, 807 F.Supp.2d 828, 835 (D. Ariz. 2011) (criminal defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to fair trial may overcome duty to disclose otherwise