State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 433
| Ohio | 2016Background
- On Jan 22, 2015, Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers Laura Harvey and Cristian Perrin engaged in a high-speed pursuit that ended in the arrest of Aaron Teofilo; dash-cams in both patrol cars automatically recorded the pursuit and aftermath.
- The Enquirer requested the dash-cam recordings (plus incident report and 9-1-1 communications); ODPS released the report and 9-1-1 audio but withheld the video, citing the Public Records Act exemption for confidential law‑enforcement investigatory records.
- The Enquirer filed an original action in mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking release of the dash-cam footage and attorney fees, statutory damages, and costs.
- After the mandamus filing but before final disposition, ODPS produced the recordings; the court nonetheless reached the merits under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception.
- The Court reviewed three recordings: one from Harvey (≈8:30–9:30 a.m.) and two from Perrin (≈8:35–9:21 a.m.), and concluded that about 90 seconds of Harvey’s post‑Miranda questioning constituted investigatory work product but the remainder was public and should have been released.
- The Court denied the Enquirer’s requests for attorney fees, statutory damages, and costs, finding ODPS acted reasonably in reliance on existing case law and the Enquirer did not satisfy statutory formalities for damages/costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dash‑cam recordings are public records under R.C. 149.43 | Dash‑cam videos memorialize government activity and must be disclosed | Recordings are confidential law‑enforcement investigatory records exempt from disclosure | Recordings are public records, but limited exemption applies to specific portions (90 seconds) constituting investigatory work product |
| Whether the recordings fall within the investigatory‑work‑product exception (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c)) | The Enquirer: most footage duplicates incident report/public information and was not prepared solely in anticipation of litigation | ODPS: recordings pertain to criminal investigation and release would disclose specific investigatory work product | Court: exception narrowly applies; only the 90 seconds of post‑Miranda questioning was protected as investigatory work product; the rest must be released |
| Whether release would create a high probability of disclosing specific investigatory techniques/procedures | Enquirer: little or no unique investigatory value in most footage; much info already in incident report | ODPS: entire recordings could aid prosecution/disclose work product | Court: large portions had no unique investigative value or duplicated disclosed material; officials did not exercise investigatory discretion in activating dash‑cams, limiting exemption's application |
| Entitlement to attorney fees, statutory damages, and court costs | Enquirer: prevailed on merits and sought fees/costs/statutory damages | ODPS: acted reasonably in good faith relying on existing authority; Enquirer did not request by hand delivery/certified mail for statutory damages/costs | Court: denied attorney fees (respondents acted reasonably in good faith); denied statutory damages and costs because Enquirer failed to transmit written request by hand delivery or certified mail |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (trial‑court‑of‑appeals decision holding OSHP dash‑cam footage exempt under investigatory records exception; relied on by ODPS)
- Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994) (investigatory‑work‑product exception protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, applying attorney‑work‑product principles)
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006) (broad definition of "record" under Ohio Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54 (2001) (police incident reports generally subject to disclosure)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399 (2004) (incident reports may be redacted in limited circumstances; no blanket rule)
- Toledo Blade v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372 (2008) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure; mootness principles)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (principles supporting protection of work product to allow preparation for litigation)
- United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) (work‑product protection is qualified, not absolute)