Hilliard City School Dist. v. Columbus Div. of Police
2017 Ohio 8052
Ohio Ct. Cl. Hist.2017Background
- Hilliard City School District requested Columbus Division of Police (Columbus PD) investigative file concerning alleged sexual assault of employee Malisa Blizzard on Oct. 21, 2016. Columbus PD produced limited materials and withheld additional records as exempt.
- Hilliard SD obtained an Industrial Commission subpoena; Columbus PD provided more materials but withheld numerous items (many originally from Hilliard SD), citing medical-records, privacy, and confidential law enforcement investigatory records (CLEIRs) exceptions.
- Hilliard SD sued under R.C. 2743.75 alleging violation of R.C. 149.43(B); the court reviewed unredacted records in camera and Columbus PD moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- Central disputed issues: (1) whether SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) records qualify as "medical records" exempt from disclosure; (2) whether withheld items are confidential law enforcement investigatory work product (CLEIRs), including whether they "pertain to a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature," and (3) whether the work-product protection had expired.
- Special Master concluded SANE records were forensic evidence collection (not generated/maintained in process of medical treatment) and thus not exempt as medical records; but all withheld records constituted specific investigatory work product and remained protected because investigation remained a probable/pending criminal matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are SANE records exempt as "medical records" under R.C. 149.43? | SANE records are medical and thus exempt; requester submitted releases. | Columbus PD claimed SANE records are medical but used for investigation; did not maintain them as medical-treatment records. | Not exempt: records were forensic evidence collection not "generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment." |
| Do withheld items "pertain to a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature"? | Hilliard SD argued injuries were self-inflicted, so no criminal matter. | Columbus PD showed investigation proceeded as criminal (reports list rape/assault; evidence collected; SANE exam; lab reports). | Held: records pertain to a criminal law-enforcement matter. |
| Are the withheld records "specific investigatory work product" under CLEIRs? | Hilliard SD contended many items should be public (photo/incident items) or exception expired. | Columbus PD argued records are notes, working papers, photos, lab reports assembled in anticipation of prosecution. | Held: all withheld items qualify as specific investigatory work product and are exempt. |
| Has the investigatory work-product protection expired? | Hilliard SD said investigation was inactive/finished, so protection lapsed. | Columbus PD said investigation is inactive but not closed; could be reactivated if new leads arise; a crime was evident so materials assembled in anticipation of prosecution. | Held: protection remains because a probable criminal proceeding existed and the investigation is not conclusively closed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (standard and scope for CLEIRs and public-records claims)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (2006) (public-records law construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (custodian bears burden to prove applicability of exception)
- State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim, 80 Ohio St.3d 155 (1997) (definition and conjunctive requirements for "medical record" exception)
- State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994) (work-product definition; ongoing routine offense reports excluded)
- State ex rel. Leonard v. White, 75 Ohio St.3d 516 (1996) (work-product applies where it is evident a crime occurred even without an identified suspect)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54 (2001) (distinguishing initiation reports from investigatory work product)
- Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433 (2016) (case-by-case review for visual recordings with concrete investigative value)
- State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 76 Ohio St.3d 340 (1996) (work-product protection in investigatory files)
- State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 57 Ohio St.3d 77 (1991) (investigatory work product can remain exempt over time)