Can New Mexico police departments withhold an entire internal-affairs investigation as a personnel matter?

Plain-English summary

New Mexico's Second Judicial District Attorney asked how the state Supreme Court's 2026 Albuquerque Journal decision affected access to police internal-affairs investigations under the Inspection of Public Records Act.

Attorney General Raúl Torrez concluded that IPRA's exception for "matters of opinion" no longer allowed a law enforcement agency to withhold an internal-affairs file in full merely because the file contained opinion material. A records custodian must review the information within each record, separate protected opinions from nonopinion material, and make the nonopinion information available for inspection.

The opinion explained that Albuquerque Journal replaced a categorical, record-by-record approach with an information-based one. No category of personnel record is presumptively exempt. Factual material or information with an adequate foundation in fact does not become protected merely because it appears in a disciplinary or internal-affairs record.

The conclusion was narrow. The AG addressed only the Section 14-2-1(C) matters-of-opinion exception, assumed the requested materials were public records, and expressed no view on attorney-client privilege, law-enforcement-record exceptions, criminal-investigation issues, or other potentially applicable laws.

What this means for you

Public-records custodians

An internal-affairs record cannot be withheld in full under Section 14-2-1(C) simply because some of it contains opinions. The custodian must separate opinion from nonopinion information and then consider whether another IPRA exception protects any of the remaining material.

Law enforcement agencies

The opinion rejects a presumption that every record created for an internal-affairs investigation is exempt. It leaves opinion material protected and recognizes that separate exceptions may apply to confidential sources, methods, criminal matters, or material protected by other law.

Police officers

Opinions lacking a factual foundation and capable of seriously damaging an employee remain within the matters-of-opinion exception. Factual portions of the same record are not protected by that exception alone.

Journalists and public-records requesters

The presence of exempt opinions does not permit wholesale withholding. Nonexempt, nonopinion information must be made available after the protected material is separated, subject to any other applicable exception.

Common questions

Q: Are New Mexico police internal-affairs files public records? A: The opinion assumed the files at issue were public records. It concluded that the matters-of-opinion exception protected only opinion portions, not an entire investigation.

Q: Can an agency withhold a whole document because one part contains an opinion? A: No, not on that basis. The custodian must separate opinion information and disclose the nonopinion remainder unless another exemption applies.

Q: Are factual findings in an internal-affairs file automatically exempt as personnel material? A: No. The opinion said entire categories of personnel records are no longer presumed exempt and required an information-specific inquiry.

Q: Does this opinion require release of criminal-investigation information? A: It does not answer that question. The AG expressly limited the analysis to administrative inquiries into compliance with agency policies and did not decide how other IPRA exceptions apply.

Q: Are citizen complaints treated as protected opinions? A: The opinion noted earlier precedent holding that citizen complaints were not protected by the matters-of-opinion exception because officers lacked a privacy interest in their interactions with the public.

Background and statutory framework

IPRA, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, gives every person a right to inspect state public records, subject to listed exceptions. Section 14-2-1(C) protects letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files. Under § 14-2-9, a custodian must separate exempt from nonexempt information and provide the nonexempt portion.

Before Albuquerque Journal, Hall v. City of Carlsbad allowed internal-affairs records prepared to determine discipline to be withheld under the opinion exception. The Supreme Court's 2026 decision overruled that whole-record approach. The opinion also discussed Cox v. DPS and State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid to distinguish factual information from ungrounded, potentially damaging opinions.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2025)
• Section 14-2-1(C)
• § 14-2-9
• Section 14-2-1.2(A)(7)
• NMSA 1978, § 29-7-4.3(K) (2023)

Cases:

• Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, -NMSC-, 2026 WL 1492129 (S-1-SC-40671, May 28, 2026)
• Hall v. City of Carlsbad, 2023-NMCA-042, ¶ 7
• State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, ¶ 12, 90 N.M. 790
• Cox v. DPS, 2010-NMCA-096, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 934

Source

• Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2026-11-opinion-application-of-the-new-mexico-supreme-courts-albuquerque-journal-decision-to-internal-affairs-investigations-of-law-enforcement-officers/
• Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/Attorney-General-Opinion-2026-11-Application-of-the-NMSCs-ABQ-Journal-decision-to-internal-affairs-investigations-of-LE-Officers.pdf

Original opinion text

September 3, 2026
OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General

Opinion No. 2026-11

To:

Sam Bregman, District Attorney, Second Judicial District

Re:

Attorney General Opinion – Application of the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Albuquerque Journal decision to internal affairs investigations of law enforcement officers Question

Does the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision in Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, -NMSC-, 2026 WL 1492129 (S-1-SC-40671, May 28, 2026), make internal affairs investigations into law enforcement officer conduct subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2025)? Are the factual investigatory portions of internal affairs files subject to IPRA? Answer Under the Albuquerque Journal decision, Section 14-2-1(C) exempts from disclosure only the opinion portions of internal affairs investigation records into law enforcement officers. Background An internal affairs investigation is an administrative inquiry into a law enforcement officer’s compliance with agency policies. See, e.g., Albuquerque, N.M., Police Department General Orders: 1-1 Personnel Code of Conduct (July 18, 2025); Albuquerque, N.M., Police Department Administrative Orders: 3-41 Complaints Involving Department Personnel (Mar. 26, 2025). Internal affairs investigations are generally conducted by the law enforcement agency itself and carry their own set of administrative procedures and potential penalties. See, e.g., id.; Albuquerque, N.M., Police Department Administrative Orders: 3-46 Discipline System (Mar. 7, 2025). While an internal affairs investigation can sometimes escalate into a criminal investigation, see NMSA 1978, § 29-14-8 (1991), this opinion concerns only the elements of the investigation devoted to an officer’s compliance with internal policies and procedures of his or her agency.

New Mexico Department of Justice
408 Galisteo Street | Santa Fe, NM 87501 | (505) 490-4060 | NMDOJ.GOV

To that end, we address only the Section 14-2-1(C) “matters of opinion” exception as applied to internal affairs investigations. We do not express any opinion as to other IPRA exemptions that may be relevant to internal affairs investigations and records (especially those that may be relevant when criminal conduct is at issue), such as attorney-client privilege, § 14-2-1(G), the lawenforcement records exception, § 14-2-1.2, the “otherwise provided by law” exception, § 14-21(N), or other potentially available exceptions. Nor does this opinion comment on statutes that prescribe how material should be entered into a law enforcement officer’s personnel file. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 29-14-7 (1991). This opinion assumes the records at issue are indeed public records. Section 14-2-6(H) (defining public records as “all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of any public body and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained”). Analysis New Mexico’s IPRA grants “[e]very person . . . a right to inspect public records of this state.” Section 14-2-1. One exception to this rule is that “letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files” are exempt from disclosure. Section 14-2-1(C). Our Supreme Court recently narrowed this “matters of opinion” exception. Section 14-2-1(C). Previously, investigatory internal affairs records were presumed to contain matters of opinion and could be withheld in their entirety. Now, no individual record enjoys a presumption against disclosure, the opinion and nonopinion information within each record must be separated, and the nonopinion information must be made available for disclosure. We start with the prior precedent. Over the last half century, New Mexico courts interpreted the “matters of opinion” exemption to apply to “‘documents concerning infractions and disciplinary action,’ and to other opinion information ‘that might have no foundation in fact but, if released for public view, could be seriously damaging to an employee.’” Hall v. City of Carlsbad, 2023NMCA-042, ¶ 7 (quoting State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, ¶ 12, 90 N.M. 790). Exempted records may have contained “information regarding the employer/employee relationship, such as internal evaluations; disciplinary reports or documentation; promotion, demotion, or termination information; or performance assessments.” Cox v. DPS, 2010-NMCA096, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 934. Historically, law enforcement agencies could withhold records prepared in furtherance of an internal affairs investigation. Hall, 2023-NMCA-042, ¶ 10. In Hall, the Court of Appeals held that “[w]hen a law enforcement officer’s employer performs an internal affairs investigation to investigate violations of the officer’s terms of employment for the purpose of determining whether infractions occurred and whether disciplinary action should be taken, documents and reports prepared in furtherance of the investigation fall squarely within this exemption.” Id. Under this rule, a record could be withheld if its “nature and purpose” was to “determine[e] whether to take disciplinary action” against an officer. Id. ¶ 11.

2

But even historically, the “matters of opinion” exception did not shield all records in a personnel file. For example, because a citizen is free to publish information about their interactions with law enforcement, and officers do not have “a privacy interest in their interactions with the public,” citizen complaints contained in personnel files did not fall under the “matters of opinion” exception. Cox, 2010-NMCA-096, ¶¶ 25, 29. Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Albuquerque Journal overruled Hall’s conclusion that internal affairs records could be withheld in their entirety if they contained “matters of opinion.” In Albuquerque Journal, the Supreme Court considered the claims of news organizations seeking the release of a report prepared by outside counsel at the direction of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education regarding allegations of misconduct against the APS Superintendent.
-NMSC-, ¶ 5. The Supreme Court held the nonopinion information in the report must be made available for inspection. In so doing, the Supreme Court altered existing precedent interpreting the “matters of opinion” exemption in two ways. First, records that contain “matters of opinion” are no longer excepted in their entirety. The Supreme Court overruled previous decisions that endorsed a record-by-record approach to the disclosure of personnel records and instead endorsed an information-based approach. Instead of withholding an entire record on the basis it contains some opinion information, a custodian must “separate information that is a matter of opinion from that which is not, and provide the nonopinion information for inspection.” Id. ¶ 28. Internal affairs records that contain both opinion and nonopinion information “cannot be withheld in toto.” Id. (text only). The Supreme Court’s interpretation of IPRA is consistent with longstanding guidance of this office that “[t]he fact that a file may contain some information that may not be disclosed does not necessarily protect all the information from public disclosure.” N.M. Dep’t of Justice, Inspection of Public Records Act: A Compliance Guide on Government Transparency for New Mexicans and Their Public Officials 57 (9th ed. 2024); § 14-2-9 (“Requested public records containing information that is exempt and nonexempt from disclosure shall be separated by the custodian prior to inspection, and the nonexempt information shall be made available for inspection.”). In sum, nonopinion information is no longer shielded from disclosure merely because it appears in a record that also contains opinion information. Second, entire categories of personnel records are no longer presumptively exempt from disclosure. Previous opinions of the Court of Appeals held that personnel records containing “information regarding the employer/employee relationship such as internal evaluations; disciplinary reports or documentation; promotion, demotion, or termination information; or performance assessments” could be presumptively withheld as records containing matters of opinion. Cox, 2010-NMCA-096, ¶ 29. Our Supreme Court overruled those holdings. It explained that “entire categories of personnel records” are not “presumptively exempt from disclosure.” Albuquerque J., -NMSC-, ¶ 22 n.4. Instead, the “necessary inquiry” is “whether information within a particular record is actually a matter of opinion, rather than some other type of information supported by an adequate foundation in fact.” Id. In other words, just because a record was created in the course of an internal affairs investigation does not presumptively exempt it from disclosure. A custodian 3

must consider if the record contains matters of opinion, separate the matters of opinion, and disclose the remainder unless the nonopinion information is subject to another IPRA exemption. In short, the “matters of opinion” exemption no longer shields internal affairs investigation records in their entirety. See State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rts. v. Lashutka, 648 N.E.2d 808, 809– 10 (Ohio 1995) (internal affairs investigations are public records subject to disclosure); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 648 N.E.2d 419, 428 (Mass. 1995) (same); see also Chief of Police v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 746 A.2d 1264, 1266–68 (Conn. 2000) (similar). Of course, the “matters of opinion” exemption still retains most of its teeth. Custodians can still exempt that opinion information “that might have no foundation in fact but, if released for public view, could be seriously damaging to an employee.” Newsome, 1977-NMSC-076, ¶ 12. It is only the nonopinion information that is not exempt from disclosure. Moreover, as discussed above, when conducting the required individual analysis of internal affairs investigatory records, IPRA custodians should consider whether other exceptions may bar the release of certain nonopinion information. Section 14-2-1.2(A)(7) (exempting from disclosure “confidential sources, methods or information”); § 14-2-1(N) (excepting records from disclosure as “otherwise provided by law”); see also NMSA 1978, § 29-7-4.3(K) (2023) (recognizing that internal affairs investigatory records may be confidential and shall “remain confidential” when transmitted for law enforcement certification board proceedings). Conclusion Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Albuquerque Journal, the matters of opinion exception can no longer be used to shield internal affairs investigations in their entirety. Only the portions of the documents that contain opinion information are exempt from disclosure.

Please note that this opinion is a public document and is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. It will be published on our website and made available to the general public. RAÚL TORREZ ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Daniel Ahrens
Daniel Ahrens
Assistant Solicitor General

4