State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 666

Relator Jerone McDougald, an inmate at Toledo Correctional Institution (TCI), requested to inspect surveillance video of a use-of-force incident that involved him.
TCI custodian Sonrisa Sehlmeyer initially told McDougald the video was available but referenced a statute about conveying electronic devices; McDougald clarified he sought inspection, not a copy.
McDougald filed an original mandamus action after receiving no further response; the court issued an alternative writ and ordered evidence.
Sehlmeyer submitted affidavits showing McDougald’s extensive disciplinary history (threats, spitting, throwing bodily fluids) and asserted that allowing inspection would pose security risks and disrupt operations.
The court admitted McDougald’s affidavit attached to his complaint as evidence and considered all submitted materials.
The court denied the writ, holding that permitting inspection would create undue security risks and unreasonably interfere with prison duties; statutory damages and costs were denied.

Issue	McDougald's Argument	Sehlmeyer's Argument	Held
Whether McDougald has a clear legal right to inspect the surveillance video under R.C. 149.43	McDougald: statute entitles him to inspect public records (the video)	Sehlmeyer: security-risk exception permits denying inspection because it would endanger safety and interfere with duties	Denied — court held security risks/disruption excuse a duty to permit inspection
Whether McDougald’s disciplinary history is relevant to whether inspection may be denied	McDougald: prior misconduct unrelated to record inspection and therefore irrelevant	Sehlmeyer: history and classification are directly relevant to assessing security risks	Held relevant — court relied on inmate’s history to find inspection would create security issues
Whether McDougald’s affidavit and attached request could be considered evidence	McDougald: affidavit filed with complaint qualifies as evidence despite not being refiled after alternative writ	Sehlmeyer: he failed to submit required evidence per court’s filing schedule	Court admitted the affidavit and considered documents attached to the complaint as evidence

State ex rel. Patterson v. Ayers, 171 Ohio St. 369 (1960) (established that offices need not permit inspection if it endangers safety or unreasonably interferes with custodian duties)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (courts should defer to prison officials’ judgments to preserve internal order and institutional security)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr, 129 Ohio St.3d 37 (2011) (prison administrators entitled to deference in policies preserving order and security)
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545 (2018) (surveillance video qualifies as a public record)
State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011) (mandamus to compel records requires clear-and-convincing proof of right and duty)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 148 Ohio St.3d 595 (2016) (reiterated mandamus standard for public-records actions)