Pima county divorce public record

Skip to main navigation Skip to main content Skip to footer navigation.

Text Size: A A A. Retype the characters from the picture:. Case Search. Verification To improve performance and to prevent excessive high-volume use, we have implemented randomly generated verification words that must be entered before running a search. For questions or technical issues or to discuss options for high-volume access, please Contact Us. Please enter the words shown into the text field below, and then click the Submit button to proceed with your search.

Document Search For access to criminal and civil court documents in the Superior Court visit the eAccess portal. The following case types are excluded from search results: sealed cases, cases involving un-served Orders of Protection, mental health and probate cases, victim and witness data. Certain administrative functions carried out by superior court clerk's offices in each county are not included in this website, such as passport application processing and private process server registration. Charges stemming from local ordinance violations are not included.

The user is responsible for verifying information provided on this website against official court information filed at the court of record. On March 19, , Lawrence Carlson plaintiff , an inmate of the Pima County Jail, was implicated in an alleged assault on another inmate. The story he wrote named the three alleged offenders and, when viewed in its worst light, told the public that Carlson had been accused of forcible oral sex with another inmate.

The case was tried before a jury. At the end of plaintiff's case, the court directed a verdict for all of the defendants except Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Sheriff Dupnik was granted a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; it is from the judgment entered on this verdict that plaintiff appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had not erred in directing a verdict for the Sheriff. The court of appeals held that Sheriff Dupnik was a "public officer," A. The court noted that the Sheriff must receive all persons committed to the jail and provide them with necessities, A. Therefore, reasoned the court, the offense report was a public record which the Sheriff had the duty to make.

Thus, the court concluded the public had a right of access to the report and its publication was privileged as a matter of law. Plaintiff challenges these conclusions. However, Title 39 does not contain a definition of "public records" or "other matters".

Pima County Clerk of the Superior Court | AZ Public Info

A enactment amended the public records statutes considerably, but still provides no definitions. Prior to these amendments, this Court had defined a public record[1] as:. Mathews v.

Pyle, 75 Ariz. The amendment of A. The statute requires a public "officer" to.

Frequently Asked Questions

Section Pyle, supra. In so holding, we approve of dispensing with an initial determination of whether a document is a "public record" or an "other matter" and moving directly to a determination of whether or not the countervailing interests enunciated in Mathews v. Pyle, supra, override the policy of disclosure. See Little v. Gilkinson, Ariz.

Find Court-Related Information

City of Phoenix, Ariz. There are numerous statutory exemptions to the general "open access" policy toward public records; for example: adoption records A. In Mathews v. Pyle, supra, by case law we recognized a limitation on the disclosure required by A. Various limitations were generally recognized by the common law, see 66 Am.

Pyle, supra, however, dealt with a report which this Court determined not to be a public record, but which fell within the "other matters" wording of A. After defining the particular report as an "other matter," we qualified the statutory right of public inspection, recognizing the countervailing interests where the document is either confidential or disclosure would be detrimental to the best interests of the state.

Arguably, since Mathews v.

  • Public Records Request.
  • Pima county cities.
  • Pima County Arrest, Court, and Public Records.
  • Arizona Superior Court in Pima County - Home;
  • dwi college track student texas center.
  • free search for people in italy.

Pyle dealt specifically with something determined to be an "other matter," rather than a public record, that decision could be construed as adopting a qualified limitation on access only for "other matter," with no limitation of access to those records defined as "public records". We hold today that the common law limitations to open disclosure are not based on any technical dichotomy which might be argued under the "public records" or "other matters" wording of A.

Case Information

This has been the general basis for the common law rule. The enactment of A. Pyle and we do not believe that the current statutory scheme, which is all-inclusive in its requirements of record keeping, was intended by the legislature to overrule the balancing scheme adopted in Mathews v. These qualifications as to public access do not preclude inspection entirely even where the competing interests of the common law limitations override the public's right to inspect certain documents. Other alternatives exist. Pyle, supra, we ordered an in camera inspection of the document by the trial court for judicial consideration of whether the Mathews interest-balancing applied.

In camera inspection was also approved by the court of appeals in Little v.

Gilkinson, supra. In light of our statutory policy favoring disclosure, we think that the best procedure is that all records required to be kept under A.

Record Information

While access and disclosure is the strong policy of the law, the law also recognizes that an unlimited right of inspection might lead to substantial and irreparable private or public harm; thus, where the countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state should be appropriately invoked to prevent inspection, we hold that the officer or custodian may refuse inspection. Such discretionary refusal is subject to judicial scrutiny.