State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.
122 N.E.3d 1208
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Relator Corredon Rogers, a DRC employee at Marion Correctional Institution (MCI), requested unedited security-camera video of a November 10, 2015 use-of-force incident involving staff and an inmate.
- DRC denied the request, citing R.C. 149.433 exceptions for "infrastructure records" and "security records," and refused disclosure.
- Rogers filed an original action for a writ of mandamus under Ohio's Public Records Act; the court issued an alternative writ and received the video under seal for review.
- The challenged video is continuous, silent, 2 minutes 28 seconds long, with under one minute showing the use-of-force; camera that recorded the incident is in plain view.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the video fits R.C. 149.433 exceptions, and whether Rogers is entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees, and court-cost reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the camera video is a public record subject to disclosure | Rogers: Video is a public record; DRC must produce under R.C. 149.43 | DRC: Video falls outside the definition of public record via statutory exceptions | Held: Video is a public record; DRC must release the unredacted footage |
| Infrastructure-record exception under R.C. 149.433(A) | Rogers: Video shows only spatial layout akin to a simple floor plan, excluded from definition | DRC: Video reveals configuration of critical systems (camera network, alarms, entry/exit security) and thus is an infrastructure record | Held: Not an infrastructure record—video shows only spatial relationships and does not disclose configuration of critical systems |
| Security-record exception under R.C. 149.433(A) | Rogers: Footage does not contain information "directly used" to protect or maintain security as defined by statute | DRC: Footage reveals vulnerabilities/capabilities of security protocols and would aid nefarious actors; cites out-of-state authority | Held: Not a security record—DRC provided only general, conclusory affidavits and no proof the footage fits the statutory security exception |
| Entitlement to statutory damages and attorney fees | Rogers: Entitled to statutory damages ($100/business day up to $1,000) and reasonable attorney fees because DRC wrongfully withheld records | DRC: Withholding was reasonable under exceptions and analogous authority (New Jersey case) | Held: Rogers awarded $1,000 statutory damages (maximum), reasonable attorney fees, and reimbursement of court costs; reduction or denial of damages/fees not justified because DRC's position was unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 31 N.E.3d 616 (Ohio 2015) (mandamus appropriate to compel compliance with Public Records Act)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof)
- State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ., 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (burden on custodian to prove applicability of disclosure exceptions)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 886 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 2008) (exception must show record "falls squarely within" it)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born, 25 N.E.3d 988 (Ohio 2014) (security-record exception construed narrowly; must be proven per-record)
- Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 732 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 2000) (conclusory affidavits insufficient to establish exception)
- Gilleran v. Bloomfield Twp., 149 A.3d 800 (N.J. 2016) (out-of-state case holding surveillance video exempt under NJ statute; distinguished by court)
- Kish v. Akron, 846 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio 2006) (public-records statute to be construed to preserve open access to government)