FILED IN MY OFFICE

DISTRICT COURT CLERK

12/10/2015 4:31:25 PM
James A. Noel
Janet Ashley

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MUNAH GREEN
Plaintiff,
v.

No. D-202-CV-2015-05680

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial on November 20, 2015, with attorneys
Ahmad Assed and Richard J. Moran representing the Plaintiff, and attorney Kevin Morrow
appearing for the Defendant, and having considered the evidence presented at the trial, the
pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby enters the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
I.

Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 10, 2015 to enforce the New Mexico Inspection
of Public Records Act.
2. On March 22, 2015, Plaintiffs 17 year old son, Jaquise Lewis, was shot and
killed by a presently unknown person at the Los Altos Skate Park in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
3. Albuquerque Police Department (APD) personnel arrived on the scene and
conducted a criminal investigation during which they discovered that a private
citizen at the park filmed various incidents, including a scene in the darkness of
the shooting of at least one firearm.

4. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff, through her counsel, made a written request in
accordance with NMSA 1978 14-2-8(A) of the Inspection of Public Records
Act (IPRA) to the Defendant, through the Albuquerque Police Department
(APD) Records Custodian/IPRA Manager, Mr. Reynaldo Chavez. This written
request was admitted by stipulation as Plaintiffs Exhibit 2.
5. Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 contains nine (9) requests for public records associated with
the events surrounding the shooting, but also past criminal events relating to Los
Altos Skate Park.
6. Specifically, Plaintiff sought through the IPRA request:
i. Any and all police reports, written or otherwise, pertaining to the fatal
shooting of Jacquise Lewis that occurred March 22, 2015;
ii. Any and all recordings, transcripts of recordings, or call logs of 911
calls made in connection with Jacquise Lewiss death made on March 22,
2015. This includes all calls made before, during, and after his fatal
shooting;
iii. Any and all unedited and unredacted videos taken at the scene of Jacquise
Lewiss shooting. This includes and all lapel camera videos, as well as
any and all videos taken by civilian witnesses which were either provided
to or confiscated by APD;
iv. Any and all audio recordings or transcripts of recordings made at the
scene of Jacquise Lewiss shooting. This includes, but is not limited to
belt recorders or belt recordings of officers on the scene;
v. A comprehensive list of names of all APD officers who were at the crime
scene of Jacquise Lewiss shooting, including their respective ranks. This
includes rosters, log-in lists or CAD printouts for officers that arrived
on scene;
vi. Copies of all audio recordings or transcripts of audio recordings from
police band radio stations made on March 22, 2015. This includes but is
not limited to those of police broadcast station Southwest Air or
Southwest Radio;

vii. Any and all documents for calls related to police service to the Los Altos
Skate Park located at 10401 Lomas NE from January 1, 2010 to present;
viii. Any and all police reports involving the Los Altos Skate Park located at
10401 Lomas NE from January 1, 2010 to present;
ix. Any and all phone calls made to the City of Albuquerques emergency
911 involving the Los Altos Skate Park located at 10401 Lomas NE
from January 1, 2010 to present.
7. On April 13, 2015, Mr. Reynaldo Chavez, the designated APD records
custodian/IPRA Manager, acknowledged receipt to Plaintiffs IPRA request,
informing Plaintiff Please be advised we are reviewing your request to determine
what public records are responsive and whether any exception to their production
apply. We will continue our review and contact you prior to the expiration of
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of your request. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.
8. On April 27, 2015, Mr. Chavez sent an email correspondence to Plaintiff stating
Please be advised upon further review of your IPRA request, we have
determined we require additional time to process your request. The department
respectfully requests an additional reasonable period of time to complete our
continuing search, and potentially necessary review and redaction of privileged
and exempted content. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.
9. On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff sent an email and written correspondence to Mr.
Chavez. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 5 & 6.
10. Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 is a letter addressed to Mr. Chavez that expresses concern
with APDs failure to produce the public records sought on April 10, 2015.
11. Specifically, this letter addressed the Defendants failure to comply with NMSA
1978 14-2-10, as Plaintiff contended in this letter that the statute states that [i]f

the inspection is not permitted within three business days, the custodian shall
explain in writing when the records will be available for inspection or when the
public body will respond to the request. Here your communication provides no
timeframe as to when the records will be available. Instead you state my office
will receive an email as soon as these documents become available for
inspection.
12. Mr. Chavez was relieved of his position as records custodian and IPRA manager
at some time between April 27, 2015 and May 1, 2015.
13. Mr. Chavez testified that he did not receive or review this May 1, 2015
correspondence, as he was no longer employed by the Defendant.
14. After April 27, 2015, the acting APD records custodian/IPRA Manager, Javier
Urban testified to receiving and reviewing this May 1, 2015 correspondence.
15. Mr. Urban testified that at the inception of his assumption of the Office of APD
Records Custodian, he had met with officials in the City of Albuquerques Legal
Department, as well as APD Sergeant Thomson.
16. On May 8, 2015, APD held a press conference and released 13 highly selective
screen shots from a cell phone video taken at the Los Altos Skate Park on March
22, 2015; the photos were released in anticipation of identifying more witnesses
or suspects to be interviewed or otherwise investigated.
17. On or before June 11, 2015, APD Sergeant Elizabeth Thomson advised Mr.
Urban that the release of the cell phone video and other documents related to the
Los Altos shooting could hinder the active and ongoing criminal investigation.

18. In the latter part of April through the early part of May, 2015, Mr. Urban testified
that at that time it was decided that Plaintiffs entire April 10, 2015 IPRA request
would be denied
19. According to Mr. Urban, the basis for the denial would be that all of the records
sought by Plaintiff would be excepted from disclosure under the law
enforcement exception of NMSA 1978 14-2-1 (A)(4).
20. Mr. Urban testified that the decision to deny Plaintiffs request was made by
attorneys in the City Legal Department as well as by Sergeant Thomson; Mr.
Urban did not believe he had discretion to act contrary to the wishes of APD or
the City Legal Department.
21. Defendant provided Plaintiff with a denial letter on June 11, 2015. See Plaintiffs
Exhibit 7.
22. Plaintiffs Exhibit 7 is an email addressed to Plaintiffs counsel that states, [t]his
email will acknowledge completion of your public records request dated April 13,
2015. There is no responsive information available related to your request. This is
still an ongoing investigation 14-2-1 (A)(4).
23. Mr. Urban testified that he sent Plaintiffs Exhibit 7 to Plaintiff, and admitted that
it did not describe the records sought and did not set forth the names and titles or
positions of each person responsible for the denial.
24. One of the (9) nine records Plaintiff sought but denied by the City was the cell
phone video recording of the shooting at Los Altos Skate Park on March 22,
2015.

25. Despite the denial, on May 8, 2015 the Defendant held a press conference and
released thirteen (13) highly selective screen shots from the video. See Plaintiffs
Exhibit 1.
26. Defendant made the video available to Plaintiff for inspection on June 22, 2015,
and she viewed the video with her mother.
27. Defendant presented testimony from Detective Tara Juarez and Sergeant
Thomson that the release of this video to the public would compromise APDs
investigation, as both were concerned that its release would influence witnesses
recollection of the event and possibly put witnesses in danger.
28. Detective Juarez agreed that this cell phone video should be made available to the
public at the conclusion of her investigation.
29. Detective Juarez testified at the trial that there has been no further work done on
her investigation in the past four (4) weeks.
30. Sergeant Thomson did not present any testimony as to how the production of item
5 would have impeded the investigation, other than that such information was
linked to CAD reports that were otherwise, in her opinion, subject to the law
enforcement exception.
31. Sergeant Thomson testified that she was able to compile a list of all APD
personnel on the scene of the shooting from the CAD information. She stated that
she compiled this list on her own for her own purposes. No testimony was
provided as to why this list was not disclosed, or why the Defendant could not
compile a similar list to provide to Plaintiff.

32. On November 19, 2015, the City of Albuquerque provided any and all documents
related to the police service and any and all police reports involving the Los Altos
Skate Park from 2010 to present, which was responsive to Plaintiffs IPRA
requests numbers 7 and 8.
33. The same day, the City alerted Plaintiffs counsel that some records related to the
incident dated March 22, 2015 were inadvertently released and should be returned
until future determination of APD or the Court.
34. On the day prior to the trial, i.e., November 19, 2015, Defendant emailed a 20
page list of 911 calls from January 1, 2010 to April 13, 2015, relating to the Los
Altos Skate Park to Plaintiffs counsel fulfilling IPRA request number 9.
35. Defendants inadvertent disclosed to Plaintiff of some of the items it claimed to
be exempt from production under the law enforcement exception essentially
waived its claim of exemption.
36. On the morning of the trial, counsel for Defendant requested that the court require
Plaintiffs counsel to return the documents disclosed the night before because they
contained identifying information whose disclosure to the public could impede the
investigation.
37. The Defendant sought judicial intervention in preventing the public disclosure of
these public records.
38. The Court expressed concern that the Defendant had waived its ability to exercise
its right to deem these records exempt.
39. The Court admitted the video tape of the events leading up to the shooting at the
Los Altos Skate Park under seal to conduct an in camera review.

40. Between the date of Plaintiffs initial IPRA request, April 10, 2015, and
Defendants June 11, 2015 blanket denial sixty-two (62) days had elapsed.
41. Similarly, there are two-hundred-twenty-three (223) days between Plaintiffs
initial request and the November 19, 2015 disclosure of records relating to Los
Altos Skate Park that do not concern the March 22, 2015 shooting.
II.

Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and venue is proper.
2. The Inspection of Public Records Act provides citizens with the ability to inspect
the public records of its governmental institutions and bodies.
3. Our courts recognized that [e]very citizen has a fundamental right to have access
to public records. Board of Com'rs of Dona Ana County v. Las Cruces SunNews, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36 (2003).
4. New Mexico courts have also concluded that [t]he citizen's right to know is the
rule and secrecy is the exception under Inspection of Public Records Act.
Gordon v. Sandoval County Assessor, 130 N.M. 573, 28 P.3d 1114 (2001).
5. Defendant has the burden to demonstrate a reason for nondisclosure. City of
Farmington v. The Daily Times, 146 N.M. 349, 210 P.3d 246, (2009).
6. Plaintiff made a timely and legally cognizable request for nine (9) distinct items
under the New Mexico IPRA statute, one of which was the release of the cell
phone video of the March 22, 2015 shooting. In this regard, Plaintiff has satisfied
her obligation under NMSA 14-2-8(C) (Procedure for Requesting Records).

7. The Defendants primary defense in this matter was that this cell phone video of
the shooting, as well as other public records relating to the March 22, 2015
shooting, fall under an exception to the IPRA statute, under NMSA 14-2-1(A)(4).
8. Defendant waived its claim of privilege or exemption under IPRA with regard to
any documents it disclosed to Plaintiff in the days prior to trial.
9. Defendant cannot obtain retrieval of the records from Plaintiff once they have
been released.
10. Plaintiffs Exhibit 7 did not constitute a legally cognizable denial.
11. Specifically, the IPRA statute allows governmental bodies to deny a citizens
request to inspect a public record if it falls under one of eight exceptions.
12. To reach that point, however, a governmental body must comply with IPRAs
initial notification procedures. Specifically, NMSA 14-2-8(D) requires:
A custodian receiving a written request shall permit the
inspection immediately or as soon as is practicable under
the circumstances, but not later than fifteen days after
receiving a written request. If the inspection is not
permitted within three business days, the custodian shall
explain in writing when the records will be available for
inspection or when the public body will respond to the
request. The three-day period shall not begin until the
written request is delivered to the office of the custodian.
13. In this matter, the Defendant acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs April 10, 2015
IPRA request on April 13, 2015.
14. In its April 13, 2015 acknowledgement, Defendant complied with this statutory
requirement, as it indicated that it would respond to the IPRA request prior to the
expiration of the fifteen days required by statute.

15. On April 27, 2015, the Defendant sought additional time to comply, indirectly
deeming the IPRA request as broad and burdensome.
16. NMSA 14-2-10 (Procedure for excessively burdensome or broad requests) sets
out that:
If a custodian determines that a written request is
excessively burdensome or broad, an additional reasonable
period of time shall be allowed to comply with the request.
The custodian shall provide written notification to the
requester within fifteen days of receipt of the request that
additional time will be needed to respond to the written
request. The requester may deem the request denied and
may pursue the remedies available pursuant to the
Inspection of Public Records Act if the custodian does not
permit the records to be inspected in a reasonable period of
time.
17. Thus, the Defendant complied with NMSA 14-2-10, in that it notified the Plaintiff
that additional reasonable time was needed to gather the documents and
conduct a review.
18. This request for additional time, however, was disingenuous, as the Defendant
had made the determination, contemporaneous to this April 27, 2015 request for
additional reasonable time, to deny Plaintiffs complete IPRA request.
19. Custodian Urban testified that the decision to deny this request was made by City
officials within days of this April 27, 2015 letter, but the Defendant would not
alert Plaintiff for forty-five days, creating the impression that the Defendant was
diligently sorting through what it felt was public record and what it felt was
exempt from disclosure.
20. On June 11, 2015, the Defendant provided Plaintiff with a blanket denial of the
April 10, 2015 IPRA request. This blanket denial lacked a detailed description of

10

the records sought and did not set forth the names and titles of the persons
responsible for the denial, as required by statute.
21. According to Custodian Urban, despite the fact that the June 11, 2015 denial is
drafted by him, he was not responsible for the denial, as such a decision came
from City Legal and APD.
22. Defendant has failed to demonstrate how each, individual request made on April
10, 2015, the law enforcement exception broadly applies.
23. Under NMSA 14-2-1(A)(4), law enforcement records that reveal confidential
sources, methods, information or individuals accused but not charged with a
crime, are exempted from IPRA. Examples of such law enforcement records
include evidence in any form received or compiled in connection with a criminal
investigation or prosecution by a law enforcement or prosecuting agency,
including inactive matters or closed investigations to the extent that they contain
the information listed in this paragraph.
24. Defendant (APD officers) provided still shots of video tape recording of the skate
park incident during the press conference, and on June 22, 2015, in a closed
session, Defendant showed that video in full to Plaintiff and her mother so that
they could view and inspect the video.
25. Although copies of the video tape were not provided to Plaintiff, this partial
disclosure complied with the spirit of IPRA in that the requester was allowed to
inspect the full video tape recording.
26. Defendant (City Attorneys Office) provided the bulk of the written disclosures
leading up to and on November 18 and 19, 2015, some of which Defendant later

11

sought to have returned to the City based on a claim of error in disclosing

privileged or exempt investigatory records.
27. The full extent of the November 19, 2015 disclosures was not entirely clear from
the evidence at the trial.
28. The written disclosures on the eve of the trial complied in large part with the
Citys obligation to disclose under IPRA, but the extent of that disclosure is
uncertain and the disclosure was long overdue.
29. Defendant should complete its IPRA disclosure with regard to any documents that
have not been disclosed to date.
30. Defendants allegedly accidental disclosure of the documentary submission on
November 19, 2015, which it now seeks to be returned, essentially resulted in a
waiver of the privilege or exemption under IPRA, and it discredits the Citys
claim of privilege/exemption as criminal investigatory records.
31. Because the video of the Los Altos Skate Park incident was taken by a private
citizen, the claim of privilege or exemption by the City is questionable.
32. Given the release of the still shots of the video and the fact the Defendant allowed
Plaintiff and her mother to review the private citizen video essentially resulted in
a waiver of a continued claim of privilege or exemption of the video.
33. Defendant shall release a copy of the video forthwith.
34. IPRA recognizes that there may be requests for information that contain exempt
and nonexempt material. Nothing in IPRA indicates that a governmental body can
deny a citizens request for information because some of this information may be
exempt.

12

35. In this matter, the Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiffs otherwise lawful
requests for public records.
36. It took Plaintiff initiating a civil complaint to get this information, and Plaintiff is
entitled to the remedies associated with enforcement of IPRA.
37. Because the Defendant has not provided a statutorily sufficient written denial,
they are entitled to those damages outlined in NMSA 14-2-11(C), which states:
A custodian who does not deliver or mail a written
explanation of denial within fifteen days after receipt of a
written request for inspection is subject to an action to
enforce the provisions of the Inspection of Public Records
Act and the requester may be awarded damages. Damages
shall: (1) be awarded if the failure to provide a timely
explanation of denial is determined to be unreasonable; (2)
not exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day; (3) accrue
from the day the public body is in noncompliance until a
written denial is issued; and (4) be payable from the funds
of the public body.
38. The Plaintiff should be awarded statutory damages (of up to $100 per day) against
the City for the period from April 10, 2015, until ultimate disclosure of records
was made.
39. The Court will impose this penalty given the extent to which Defendant ignored
Plaintiffs otherwise lawful requests.
40. Similarly, Plaintiff is entitled to damages under NMSA 14-2-12, which allows
this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the production of these public
records, as well as the imposition of attorneys fees, costs, and any actual
damages suffered by the Plaintiff; a Writ of Mandamus shall issue to require
disclosure of any remaining documentary records not yet disclosed.

13

41. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support her claim for actual damages,
and so the Court will not award her any actual damages associated with bringing
this action.
42. Plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed the costs of bringing this matter, as well as
attorneys fees for services secured to protect her interest in disclosure, as well as
recovery of costs.
43. Plaintiffs attorney is ordered to submit an affidavit detailing the hours claimed
for counsel (in 10ths of an hour) (only one attorneys time will be allowed during
hearing/trial time), together with a description of services provided, an indication
of the value of benefit obtained, an explanation of the complexity of the case, the
ability, reputation, skill and experience of the attorney in the legal community.
44. Any unproduced records or materials do not survive the law enforcement
exception of IPRA after the extensive waivers that occurred in this proceeding.
45. Therefore, upon request of Plaintiff for any undisclosed records, the Court will
issue an immediate Writ of Mandamus ordering Defendant to fully produce what
was sought by Plaintiffs April 10, 2015 IPRA request.

14