{ "id": 4240758, "name": "KIM HOLLAND and KRQE NEWS 13, Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE and Deputy Police Chief ALLEN BANKS, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Holland v. City of Albuquerque", "decision_date": "2014-10-29", "docket_number": "Docket No. 33,171", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "262", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2015-NMCA-014" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "150 N.M. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4249767 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMSC-046", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3691916 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/142/0235-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 5767, "ocr_confidence": 0.776, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1408282876723701 }, "sha256": "12ac1d3bbcecad31d17b3d2b507ef58ff3114846e58732b7a7460758ec91cea2", "simhash": "1:134ee6a1ca4b04bc", "word_count": 937 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:55.229683+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge", "JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge", "MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge" ], "parties": [ "KIM HOLLAND and KRQE NEWS 13, Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE and Deputy Police Chief ALLEN BANKS, Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nPetitioners KRQE News 13 and its reporter Kim Holland appeal from an adverse summary judgment dismissing their claims against Respondents City of Albuquerque and Albuquerque Police Department (APD) Deputy Chief Allen Banks for penalties for violation of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (the IPRA), NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2013). The claims arose from a request by Ms. Holland for lapel videos relating to certain arrests. The issue is whether Ms. Holland\u2019s request was verbal, in which case penalties are unavailable under the Act, or written, in which case penalties are available. See \u00a7 14-2-8(A), (D). We hold that the request was verbal and that Respondents did not violate the Act, and we affirm the summary judgment.\nBACKGROUND\nOn July 10, 2012, Ms. Holland spoke to APD public information officer, Marie A. Martinez, on the telephone and requested lapel videos. Ms. Martinez emailed APD records custodian, Reynaldo L. Chavez, asking Mr. Chavez to treat the email as a request from Petitioners for the lapel videos. The lapel videos were not made available to Petitioners within the time required under the IPRA were the request to have been written. See \u00a7 14-2-8(D). It was not until August 16, 2012, when the City held a press conference with all local media outlets, that the City released the lapel videos. Petitioners sued Respondents for violation of the IPRA based on the time delay and that the delay was illegitimate in that \u201cthe request caught APD off guard and it was scrambling to keep the lapel videos from going to the public.\u201d\nDISCUSSION\nThe applicable section of the IPRA states:\nAny person wishing to inspect the public records may submit an oral or written request to the custodian. However, the procedures set forth in this section shall be in response to a written request. The failure to respond to an oral request shall not subject the custodian to any penalty.\nSection 14-2-8(A). Petitioners contend that Ms. Martinez\u2019s email to Mr. Chavez turned the oral request made by Ms. Holland into a written request made by Ms. Holland. Petitioners also contend thatMs. Martinez was Ms. Holland\u2019s agent, thereby making the email that of Ms. Holland. We reject these contentions.\nThat Ms. Martinez then emailed the request to Mr. Chavez did not convert Ms. Holland\u2019s oral request into a written request made by Ms. Holland. Petitioners provide no authority supporting this argument. We see no reason to hold that an APD information officer\u2019s documenting an oral request, which would appear to be a good practice, should constitute transformation of an oral request into a written request for the purposes of the IPRA.\nMs. Martinez was not acting as an agent of Ms. Holland such thatMs. Martinez\u2019s email constituted a written request by Ms. Holland. There exists no evidence supporting such a legal relationship, and in addition to lack of evidence, Petitioners provide no authority that supports it. In particular, other than that the circumstances are obviously outside the scope of agency, there exists no evidence that Ms. Martinez consented to or acted in a manner to create an agency relationship, nor is there any evidence that Ms. Holland agreed to or acted in any manner to create an agency relationship. See Maes v. Audubon Indem. Ins. Grp., 2007-NMSC-046, \u00b6 17, 142 N.M. 235, 164 P.3d 934 (stating that an agency relationship does not arise until the principal \u201cmanifests assent to [the agent] that the agent shall act on the principal\u2019s behalf and subject to the principal\u2019s control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Freeman v. Fairchild, 2014-NMCA-__, \u00b6 22,__P.3d__(No. 32,542, Sept. 10, 2014) (recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact that requires evidence that the principal manifested assent to the agent and the agent manifested assent or otherwise consented so to act). Ms. Martinez\u2019s request to Mr. Chavez that Ms. Holland\u2019s request be treated as an IPRA request on Ms. Holland\u2019s behalf constituted nothing more than documenting Ms. Holland\u2019s verbal request and bringing it to the attention of the proper IPRA person in the APD. See \u00a7 14-2-8(E).\nWe agree with Respondents\u2019 concern that to accept Petitioners\u2019 agency theory would mean that every oral request documented by the APD would automatically, upon documentation, constitute a written request emanating from the requester. We also agree with the concern that oral requests can be fraught with potential for misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Petitioners\u2019 reliance on San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 201 l-NMSC-011, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884, is of no assistance to Petitioners. In that case, the person who requested information was an attorney who was acting as the attorney, and therefore, the agent of his client, when the requester was the client who sought the information, using his attorney-agent to obtain it. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 1-7, 19, 43, 45. This is not the situation before us.\nCONCLUSION\nWe affirm the district court\u2019s summary judgment granted in favor of Respondents.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nJONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nJAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge\nMICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Esquivel Law Firm, LLC Martin R. Esquivel Albuquerque, NM for Appellants", "David Tourek, City Attorney Jeffrey Driggers, Assistant City Attorney Gregory S. Wheeler, Managing Assistant City Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellees" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2015-NMCA-014\nFiling Date: October 29, 2014\nDocket No. 33,171\nKIM HOLLAND and KRQE NEWS 13, Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE and Deputy Police Chief ALLEN BANKS, Respondents-Appellees.\nEsquivel Law Firm, LLC Martin R. Esquivel Albuquerque, NM for Appellants\nDavid Tourek, City Attorney Jeffrey Driggers, Assistant City Attorney Gregory S. Wheeler, Managing Assistant City Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellees" }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 276, "last_page_order": 278 }