Denver Post v. Ritter

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Litigation.png

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article.

Denver Postvs.Ritter
Number: none
Year: 2008
State: Colorado
Court: Colorado Second Judicial District
Other lawsuits in Colorado
Other lawsuits in 2008
Precedents include:
This case established that private cell phones remain private and confidential despite their occasional use in public business.
WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption


Denver Post v. Ritter is a lawsuit filed on August 11, 2008 by the Denver Post against Bill Ritter, the Governor of Colorado under the Colorado Open Records Act.

On October 14, the lawsuit was dismissed by Denver District Judge Morris B. Hoffman who said that Ritter didn't have to turn over the phone call records from his private cell phone even if, on some of the calls, he discussed government business.

The Denver Post was seeking copies of cell phone records for a private cell phone that Ritter uses for some political or governmental discussions.

Gregory Moore, editor of the Post, said the newspaper is considering an appeal and that Ritter's use of a private phone for state busienss is "an attempt at secrecy that should not be protected."[1]

Important precedents

This case established that private cell phones remain private and confidential despite their occasional use in public business.

Background

The case was thrown out in trial court and ruled against by the court of appeals.[2]

See also

External links

References

  1. The Examiner, "Judge: Ritter personal phone records aren't public," October 15, 2008 (dead link)
  2. Denver Post, "Dangerous precedent in Ritter phone ruling"