2022 Ohio 3711
Ohio2022Background:
- Standifer (journalist for Cleveland Scene) requested Cleveland Police Department use-of-force (UOF) reports for specified dates; the city produced only an aggregate spreadsheet and withheld individual UOF reports.
- Cleveland requires UOF reports for Level 1–3 force; reports record origin of contact, acts preceding force, resistance level, and force used; reports are entered into IAPro/BlueTeam and reviewed through a chain of command per department policy and a DOJ consent decree.
- After mediation the city produced some records but withheld 87 responsive UOF reports invoking the Public Records Act’s confidential law-enforcement investigatory records (CLEIR) exception, R.C. 149.43(A)(2).
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the city, concluding UOF reports are CLEIR because their release would likely reveal the identity of uncharged suspects (the officers who used force).
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for the court of appeals to require Cleveland to re-review withheld records, allow appropriate redactions, disclose responsive records, and determine statutory damages.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UOF reports satisfy CLEIR first prong ("pertain to a law-enforcement matter") | Standifer: UOF reports are routine personnel/monitoring records aimed at discipline and do not pertain to law-enforcement investigations. | Cleveland: UOF reports are created as part of policing and force investigations and thus pertain to law-enforcement matters. | Held: UOF reports do pertain to law-enforcement matters and satisfy CLEIR’s first requirement; they are not categorically personnel records. |
| Whether UOF reports are categorically exempt under CLEIR second prong as likely to disclose identity of uncharged suspects | Standifer: Reports precede any investigation and do not automatically make officers "suspects;" therefore they are not per se protected. | Cleveland: Disclosure would likely reveal identities of uncharged suspects (officers) and other investigatory details; redaction is impracticable. | Held: No categorical rule that UOF reports always identify uncharged suspects; Cleveland failed to prove that release of all withheld reports would create a high probability of disclosing protected information. |
| Whether other CLEIR subparts (witness identity, investigatory compromise, danger to safety) apply to all UOF reports | Standifer: These protections do not apply categorically and require item-specific showing. | Cleveland: UOF reports generally contain such sensitive information and thus are exempt. | Held: Cleveland did not meet its burden to show these subparts apply to all withheld reports; particularized showing required. |
| Whether the DOJ consent decree overrides Public Records Act disclosure | Standifer: Consent-decree obligations do not override statutory disclosure; records should be released subject to redaction. | Cleveland: Consent decree and internal review duties support nondisclosure. | Held: Court did not decide this proposition because appellants prevailed on the CLEIR issue; remanded for redaction/release regardless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 526 N.E.2d 786 (court distinguished personnel vs investigatory records)
- Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 566 N.E.2d 146 (court revisited and held some routine police records may be investigatory)
- Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor, 732 N.E.2d 969 (uncharged-suspect CLEIR analysis; no per se exclusion)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 857 N.E.2d 1208 (personnel matters vs law-enforcement records distinction)
- State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff's Office, 932 N.E.2d 327 (custodian bears burden to prove CLEIR exception)
- State ex rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 550 N.E.2d 945 (discussion of redaction impracticability)