State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig
132 Ohio St. 3d 68
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Enquirer sought public records from Cincinnati Chief of Police James E. Craig under R.C. 149.43 related to the September 18, 2010 JD’s Honky Tonk shootout.
- Requests included the names of two officers injured, their personnel files, and an unredacted incident report.
- Chief Streicher denied disclosure of officers’ identities; redacted copies were offered for some records.
- Court of Appeals denied mandamus and attorney-fee relief; the matter proceeds to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Court held the requested identities were protected by the constitutional right of privacy under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v); the journalist exception did not override this privacy; no fee award due to lack of merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ identities are exempt from disclosure | Cincinnati Enquirer argues records should be public | Craig argues privacy protections apply | Yes, privacy exemption applies |
| Application of Kallstrom/Keller line of cases | Enquirer argues prior rulings require disclosure | Streets and courts properly applied privacy and threat considerations | Privacy controls; no disclosure compelled |
| Impact of Kallstrom II remand decision | Remand decision required release of information | Record evidence shows threat justifies secrecy | Remand did not require disclosure; records remain protected |
| Effect of R.C. 149.43(B)(9) journalist exception | Enquirer could invoke journalist exception | Privacy overrides journalist exception here | Journalist exception does not override privacy protection for these records |
Key Cases Cited
- Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (privacy rights in officer records; risk to officers and families)
- Kallstrom v. Columbus, 165 F.Supp.2d 686 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (Kallstrom II; remand evidence fails to show current threat)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70 (2005) (constitutional privacy includes federal rights; protected information)
- State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (privacy protects personal information; not disclosed)
- State ex rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 365 (2000) (federal privacy prevents disclosure of personal information of children)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publg Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70 (2005) (privacy rights under state/federal law)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (strict construction against exemptions; burden on custodian)