Cell phone records to be public

Monday, Aug. 21, 2000 | 11:48 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Press Association, an organization of newspapers, is applauding a unanimous ruling Friday by the state Supreme Court that Clark County must open its records of cellular telephone calls made and received by county commissioners and top appointive officials.

Association Director Kent Lauer said, "It's not surprising the court rightfully sided with the public's right to know. Taxpayers foot the bill for these cell phone privileges and they have every right to know exactly how their money is being spent.

"The county government's arguments for secrecy in this case were pale in comparison the rights of the public and press to monitor the conduct and spending of government officials," said Lauer, whose association joined the suit as a friend of the court.

"It's unfortunate it took a costly legal battle to force the county to disclose what is clearly public information. It sends a message for other government officials that they can't withhold information from the public."

The decision, written by Justice Bill Maupin, said Clark County was wrong in supplying incomplete records to the Las Vegas Review-Journal that started an investigation of government waste and possible influence peddling involving public officials.

The county supplied the newspaper two years of cellular telephone records but eliminated the last four digits of the listed incoming and outgoing telephone numbers. That prevented the identification of who was making or receiving the calls.

The newspaper sued to force the county to turn over complete numbers. District Judge Kathy Hardcastle declined to issue a writ on grounds these records came under the "deliberative process privilege" which allowed them to remain secret. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court by the newspaper.

"Deliberative process privilege" comes into play on such things as interagency memorandums or letters. The confidentiality is permitted to allow decision-makers to engage in a frank exchange without being afraid of later public disclosures. Maupin said this type of privilege involves opinions and recommendations. It does not protect purely factual matters, which is the case of the cellular telephone records.

The court, Maupin said, "concludes that the names of persons with whom government officials have consulted are not protected from disclosure under a deliberative process."

Clark County also said the disclosure of the telephone numbers would violate the privacy of persons with unlisted numbers that would be disclosed on bills. Maupin said, "The act of placing a cellular call to a private citizen places the number called within the public domain. Second, members of the public who knowingly place calls to government-issued cellular phones know that the public billings will reflect their unlisted telephone number."

The county also said the records might disclose the private numbers of public officials and police officers who are called after their working hours. The county said that could compromise their privacy and safety. Maupin said there was no proof of this danger submitted to the District Court.

In a footnote, Maupin said the District Court could require the county to divulge the identity of the caller but not his or her unlisted telephone number.

Also, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of three people who sued the city of Henderson in a dispute over the acquisition of BLM property.

The BLM put 40 acres on Boulder Highway at Gibson Road out to public bid. Lynn Leany, James Brent and Harold Foster submitted the best bid at $1.2 million for the property. But the bidding document gave Henderson the right to match the winning bid and acquire the land.

The City Council matched the Leany bid and received the land. The three private individuals sued, saying the city "intentionally interfered with a prospective economic advantage," that they enjoyed by submitting the best bid.

A district judge ruled and the Supreme Court agreed that the city was immune from suit in this case because City Council made a "discretionary" decision. And governments can't be sued for discretionary decisions.