111 N.E.3d 685
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Relator Ayanna McElrath filed a public-records mandamus action seeking “all public records” for Police Report No. 2015-383726, including body‑camera footage, incident reports, 911 calls, names/photos of officers, and records for zone car 1A26.
- The city of Cleveland produced hundreds of pages (police reports, OPS complaint/intake videos, personnel and disciplinary files for two officers, 24 body‑camera videos, 911 calls, AVL report for 1A26, etc.) and submitted a redaction log (SSNs, addresses, birthdays, phone numbers) and statutory exemptions for some material.
- City redacted officers' faces on body‑camera videos under R.C. 149.43(A)(7)(g) (officers who "may" have undercover/plain‑clothes assignments) and withheld certain OPS investigatory records under R.C. 149.43(A)(2) as ongoing investigations; a small dispatch snippet was redacted to protect a minor under R.C. 2151.421.
- McElrath admitted she had previously obtained unredacted copies of the body‑camera videos on her phone (now broken) and disputed the redactions and the city’s claims that OPS investigations remained open.
- The court ordered additional certifications and narrowed issues; after review the court found the matter ripe and resolved the disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city fulfilled the public‑records request | McElrath: City failed to produce all records responsive to her broad request (including zone‑car work order) | City: Produced police report, AVL report for 1A26, OPS materials, videos, and other responsive records; any missing specifics not identified by relator | City fulfilled request except for a work order for zone car 1A26; court ordered city to search for and produce the work order or certify it cannot be found |
| Whether court should compel unredacted body‑camera videos (faces/names) | McElrath: Has right to officer names and faces; redaction speculative because no ongoing criminal investigation | City: Redactions justified under R.C. 149.43(A)(7)(g); also city alleges relator already possessed unredacted videos and requested return/identification | Court denied writ for unredacted videos—mandamus will not compel delivery of records relator already possesses; statutory exemption properly invoked under "may" language |
| Whether OPS investigatory records must be disclosed now | McElrath: OPS records should be released because criminal case resolved and no excessive force | City: Many OPS records exempt because investigation remains open and disclosure would reveal investigatory techniques/work product | Court denied writ—city properly invoked investigatory exemption; relator may request after investigation concludes |
| Whether city must create new record listing all officers or compile additional records (e.g., list of officers) | McElrath: Wants list/names of all officers present and other compiled information | City: No duty to create new records or compile info beyond existing records under R.C. 149.43 | Court denied writ—no duty to create new records; if names absent from existing records, city not required to compile them |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Youngstown, 819 N.E.2d 1120 (Ohio 2004) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to compel compliance with Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 857 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2006) (government bears burden to prove applicability of disclosure exemptions)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 228 N.E.2d 631 (Ohio 1967) (relator must establish right to writ by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 74 N.E.3d 419 (Ohio 2016) (public records construed liberally for disclosure)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 687 N.E.2d 283 (Ohio 1997) (no duty to create new records by compiling information)
- State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 707 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio 1999) (custodian not required to create new records)
- State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 976 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus will not compel a respondent to provide something the relator already has)