Jimmy Cool prevails in an Arizona town's denial of a shooting victim's public records request

Mr. Smith demanded in writing the prompt release of the unredacted police report. The Town declined, and, in May 2021, Mr. Smith sued the Town, seeking to compel it to comply with Arizona’s public records statutes.

At trial, Mr. Smith argued that, because the shooter was not a victim for purposes of disclosure law (as the County Attorney had declined to prosecute), Mr. Smith was not required to establish that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the shooter's right to privacy. (A 1984 decision, in Carlson v. Pima County, places a burden on public entities to presumptively disclose information unless a specific privacy interest outweighs that disclosure, and automatic redaction can potentially create a “black box” of information that might render government activity impervious to public scrutiny.) He also argued that in Arizona a person's right to public records is not conditioned on their showing, or a court finding, that the documents are relevant to anything.

The trial court ruled in Mr. Smith’s favor, ordered the Town to release the unredacted police report, and awarded Mr. Smith $14,000 in attorney fees, plus $365 in costs.

The Town of Marana appealed the trial court’s ruling and the award of attorney fees and costs.

After a successful argument by Jimmy Cool and his co-counsel, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling and ordered the town to release the unredacted police records to Mr. Smith.

“The decision is a victory for transparency and open government,” said Jimmy Cool in the wake of the ruling, “and it holds elected officials accountable to the public.”

• Read the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Smith v. Town of Marana.