Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Prosecutor's Office
2017 Ohio 8451
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Requester Charles Tingler sought “all documentary reports regarding a 2011 investigation of Magistrate Sarah Nation” from the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office on Feb. 7, 2017; the office denied the request citing various R.C. exemptions.
- Tingler filed a public-records complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging unlawful denial; the prosecutor filed responsive records under seal and moved to dismiss.
- After the request but before final adjudication, Tingler was incarcerated following a probation-violation, bringing his status within R.C. 149.43(B)(8)’s restriction on inmates obtaining records of criminal investigations.
- The special master reviewed the sealed records and concluded they were “concerning a criminal investigation,” thereby falling within R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
- Tingler argued his non-incarcerated status at the time of request should control and sought treatment as a case of first impression; the special master rejected both contentions.
- The special master recommended dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because R.C. 149.43(B)(8) permits withholding such records from incarcerated persons absent a sentencing-judge finding that the records are necessary to support a justiciable claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Prosecutor must produce records of a criminal investigation | Tingler: his non-incarcerated status at request time controls; records should be producible | Prosecutor: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) bars incarcerated persons from obtaining records concerning criminal investigations unless sentencing judge finds necessity | Held: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applies once requester is incarcerated; Prosecutor need not produce records absent sentencing-judge finding |
| Whether the responsive records are "concerning a criminal investigation" | Tingler: (implied) records are public and request specific | Prosecutor: records concern a child-abuse criminal investigation and fall within statutory scope | Held: Records and audio are concerning a criminal investigation and fall within the statute’s broad scope |
| Whether this is a case of first impression requiring dismissal under R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) | Tingler: ask court to treat as first impression | Prosecutor: existing precedent governs; not novel | Held: Not a case of first impression; dismissal under that provision inappropriate |
| Whether complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim | Tingler: substantive right to records exists (subject to exemptions) | Prosecutor: statutory inmate restriction defeats claim; additional exemptions need not be reached | Held: Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim (recommendation) because R.C. 149.43(B)(8) bars access by incarcerated persons |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (clear-and-convincing standard for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (statute restricts inmate access to investigation records; broad legislative intent)
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland, 87 Ohio St.3d 548 (court may consider circumstances at decision time, not only at request time)
- State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. FitzGerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92 (changes in status can alter record availability)
- State ex rel. Blandin v. Beck, 114 Ohio St.3d 455 (procedural principles regarding public-records relief)
- Oregon v. Dansack, 68 Ohio St.3d 1 (courts consider facts at time of decision in mandamus matters)