2021 Ohio 3100
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Relators Lauren “Cid” Standifer and Euclid Media Group requested Cleveland Police "use of force" reports (officer-completed forms required after any use of force) covering Jan 1, 2019 to present.
- The use-of-force form includes incident summary, de-escalation efforts, resistance level, detailed description of force used, and supervisory chain-of-command review; reports are maintained in IAPro/BlueTeam per a DOJ settlement.
- Cleveland produced many records after mediation and court direction but withheld 87 full reports that were still under internal review/investigation, invoking the confidential law enforcement investigatory record (CLEIR) exemption, R.C. 149.43(A)(2).
- The court reviewed disclosed records and conducted in camera inspection of withheld narratives to decide whether the withheld reports qualify as CLEIR.
- The sole remaining issue: whether release would create a "high probability" of disclosing identities or other protected investigatory information, thereby fitting the CLEIR exemption.
- Court concluded the reports are investigatory and confidential because premature release would likely reveal the identities of officers (and linked suspects); mandamus to compel disclosure was denied but files may be requested again after reviews conclude.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withheld use-of-force reports are confidential law enforcement investigatory records under R.C. 149.43(A)(2) | Standifer: reports are public records and must be disclosed; relators sought the completed officer narratives. | Cleveland: reports are investigatory, still under review, and release would create a high probability of disclosing officer/suspect identities and investigatory material. | Held: reports are CLEIR; disclosure would likely reveal officer identity and investigatory details, so mandamus denied for currently withheld reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312 (limitation on overly broad/vague public-records requests)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 199 Ohio St.3d 391 (treatment of production burden and scope of requests)
- State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Youngtown, 104 Ohio St.3d 1436 (Public Records Act construed broadly in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (government bears burden to prove applicability of exemption)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Univ. of Akron, 64 Ohio St.2d 392 (distinguishing incident reports from investigatory records)
- State ex rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 49 Ohio St.3d 59 (limits on effective redaction when information is intertwined with identity)