State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage
142 Ohio St. 3d 392
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Enquirer sought the recording of an outgoing 9-1-1 dispatcher call in Butler County.
- The county attorney denied access, claiming the recordings were trial-preparation and confidential LE records.
- Trial court granted a protective order; appellate court later issued mandamus ordering release and statutory damages but denied attorney fees.
- Prosecutor later released the recording on the day of Ray’s trial; appellate court upheld mandamus and damages but denied fees.
- Ohio Supreme Court affirmed mandamus, awarded statutory damages, but remanded for proper attorney-fee determination; vacated prohibition ruling as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the return call a public record under R.C. 149.43? | Enquirer: the recording is a public record; no exemption applies. | Gmoser: the recording falls within trial-preparation and confidential LE exemptions. | The recording is a public record; no exemptions apply. |
| Do exemptions for trial preparation or confidential law enforcement apply to the recording? | Enquirer argues neither exemption applies to the outbound call. | Gmoser asserts Exemptions (A)(1)(g) and (h) apply. | Exemptions do not apply; recording not trial preparation or confidential LE record. |
| Does Crim.R. 16(C) designation exempt the recording from disclosure? | Enquirer contends no such designation occurred; thus not exempt. | Gmoser would rely on Crim.R. 16(C) as a state-law basis for withholding. | Crim.R. 16(C) designation not shown; not an exemption to disclosure. |
| Should attorney fees be awarded to the Enquirer and are statutory damages appropriate? | Enquirer seeks attorney fees and statutory damages for improper withholding. | Gmoser acted in good faith; minimal public benefit; no fees; damages questioned. | Statutory damages affirmed; court abused in denying attorney fees; remanded for fee determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Physicians Comp. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is proper to compel public-records compliance)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (clear-right/clear-duty standard for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (1996) (public-records status of tapes; limits of prosecutor’s file impact)
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (three-factor test for pretrial publicity and fair-trial risk)