Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County hears two GRAMA appeals over pursuit‑policy redactions and delayed records
Summary
At a July 31 Utah County commissioners meeting, the board heard two expedited GRAMA appeals: Eric Morgan challenged extensive redactions in the sheriff’s pursuit policy, and Greg Graves pressed for earlier release of county records and questioned the county’s definition of “record.” Commissioners directed counsel to revise redactions and affirmed statutory limits on certain record types.
Eric Morgan told the commissioners he had requested the Utah County Sheriff’s Office pursuit policy under the Government Records Access and Management Act and received a version with “pages and pages” of redactions, while pursuit policies obtained from six other counties and the Department of Public Safety were unredacted.
County civil attorney Mister Griffin told the board the first redacted copy went out before his review, and that new administrative‑code guidance required reassessment of what portions must remain protected. Griffin said portions were redacted to avoid “jeopardiz[ing] the life or safety of an individual” and to prevent disclosure of operational criteria that might enable suspects to evade deputies.
Commissioners pressed for a narrower approach. Commissioner Lee and others said the public deserves policy transparency and questioned why other counties released unredacted policies. Griffin pointed to the Utah Administrative Code and argued that revealing certain pursuit criteria (for example, the conditions under which a pursuit is terminated) could create tactical advantages for suspects.
The board directed counsel to produce a revised, less‑redacted version aligned with the Department of Public Safety guidelines for review within 24 hours so the commission could meet its five‑day ruling timeline.
On a separate expedited appeal, private citizen Greg Graves contested the county’s response timeline and the assertion that the county did not maintain certain cell‑phone records for named individuals. Graves said his July 2 GRAMA request had been delayed and that a clerk‑auditor account showed reimbursements for cell phones that suggested relevant records exist.
Deputy county attorney Ponositake replied that state statute (63G‑2‑103) defines a “record” as one prepared, owned, received or retained by a governmental entity; personal cell‑phone records paid directly by private individuals are not county records and therefore are not producible. He also said draft audits that have not been finalized are not public records under statute. Commissioners debated the scope and intent of GRAMA, and the board indicated it would issue a rolling response consistent with statutory deadlines.
The appeals portion of the meeting closed after commissioners agreed counsel would provide the revised pursuit policy redactions and that staff would proceed with statutory timelines for records that meet the legal definition of a record. The commission then opened the regular meeting agenda.
