2018 Ohio 4590
Ohio Ct. Cl.2018Background
- Requester Dean Narciso (reporter) sought Powell Police Department records for two 2015 domestic/menacing investigations; Powell produced partial incident-report pages but withheld investigative files as confidential law enforcement investigatory records (CLEIRs).
- Narciso sued under R.C. 2743.75 alleging wrongful denial; Powell filed sealed full files for in-camera review and asserted uncharged-suspect, physical-safety, Fourthteen Amendment privacy, and non-record defenses.
- Special Master conducted in-camera review, found additional pages that constitute the initial incident reports (which are not CLEIRs) and identified which materials were investigatory and subject to exceptions.
- Special Master held that specific identifiers (names, addresses, images of faces, etc.) may be redacted under the uncharged-suspect CLEIRs exception but that most investigatory material must be produced with surgical redactions; two narrow parts were found inextricably intertwined and properly withheld.
- Powell failed to prove a present threat to support the physical-safety exception and failed to substantiate a broad Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim except for sexual/intimate images; Powell also failed to identify non-record items in sufficient detail, but the court may withhold non-record contents of seized storage devices that were not used to document the investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of CLEIRs uncharged-suspect exemption | Narciso: may redact suspect identifiers but must produce investigatory records otherwise | Powell: entire investigatory file is inextricably intertwined with identifiers and may be withheld | Court: redact specific identifying data (name, addresses, face images, emails, phone, workplace, partner/children identifiers); otherwise disclose; most file not inextricably intertwined |
| Initial incident reports: completeness and disclosure | Narciso: must receive full initial incident reports (witness statements referenced) | Powell: already provided initial pages; withheld attachments as investigatory | Court: additional pages and witness statements are part of initial incident reports and must be disclosed (not subject to CLEIRs) |
| Physical-safety exception (R.C.149.43(A)(2)(d)) | Narciso: Powell offers no factual proof of present threat; exception not met | Powell: release could endanger victim, children, witnesses; IP/network data could facilitate harm | Court: Powell failed to provide affidavits/evidence of present risk; physical-safety exception not established; deny withholding on that basis |
| Fourteenth Amendment privacy for images | Narciso: public interest outweighs privacy for investigative review | Powell: some photographs are private/sexual and their release would violate privacy | Court: intimate/sexual images (genitals, breasts, underwear) may be redacted under privacy; non-intimate evidence (bruising, injuries) must be disclosed |
| Non-records and seized electronic media | Narciso: items produced under seal are records and must be released (with redactions) | Powell: many seized items were not used to document investigation and are non-records exempt from PRA | Court: Powell must identify non-records; unused/seized contents not used to document investigation may be withheld; produce items that are records and not otherwise exempt |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (Ohio 2006) (PRA construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2001) (initial incident reports are not CLEIRs; witness statements incorporated into incident reports are public)
- State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224 (Ohio 2010) (uncharged-suspect identifiers may be redacted; most investigatory records must be disclosed after specific redactions)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2008) (burden on custodian to prove applicability of exceptions)
- State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 132 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2012) (redaction must preserve substantive investigatory material)
- State ex rel. Quolke v. Strongsville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 142 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 2015) (limits on safety/privacy-based withholding once factual basis abates)
- Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (Fourteenth Amendment informational-privacy claim limited; release threatening bodily harm implicated)
- Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) (constitutional privacy protects sexual, personal, humiliating information)