2019 Ohio 473
Ohio Ct. Cl.2019Background
- Requester Andrew Welsh-Huggins (AP reporter) sought exterior courthouse security-camera video of an alley shooting on 8/21/2017; Prosecutor’s Office withheld the video and initially denied the request in full.
- Requester filed a R.C. 2743.75 complaint alleging denial of public records under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43); some related materials (a separate street-cam video and seven still photos) were later produced by respondent.
- Respondent asserted multiple exemptions: trial-preparation (later abandoned), infrastructure/security records (R.C. 149.433), and confidential law-enforcement investigatory records (CLEIRs) invoking the physical-safety exception (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(d)).
- The special master reviewed the withheld fisheye, silent video in camera: ~2 hours of footage from one fixed exterior camera, showing the shooting, responders, courthouse staff, and surrounding areas; no audio and no indication it disclosed the camera network or system schematics.
- The special master applied the burdens: requester must prove violation; custodian must prove any claimed exemption; exceptions are strictly construed and require more than conclusory assertions, often demanding specific evidence or expert support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to dismiss (12(B)(6)) | Welsh‑Huggins alleged facts showing denial of access and entitlement to relief. | Prosecutor sought dismissal, arguing video falls wholly within statutory exemptions. | Denied — complaint alleges facts that, if proven, entitle requester to relief; case proceeds on merits. |
| Infrastructure-record exception (R.C. 149.433) | N/A (argued by defendant) | Video reveals camera configuration, panorama, zoom/processing capabilities, locations of nonpublic entrances/parking — thus discloses critical-system configuration. | Rejected — footage from a single fixed camera does not disclose system configuration or critical-system schematics; defendant failed to show video falls squarely within the exception. |
| Security-record exception (R.C. 149.433) | N/A | Silent footage of response could be reverse‑engineered to reveal security plans, vulnerabilities, personnel/capabilities. | Rejected — defendant offered no expert proof or evidence that the video is "directly used" for security or contains specific vulnerability assessments/response plans; conclusory assertions insufficient. |
| CLEIR physical-safety exception (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(d)); redaction; format | Welsh‑Huggins: video is a public record and must be produced; may accept redactions to narrow exempt info; wants copy in viewable/exportable format. | Defendant: release would endanger safety of officers/witnesses and may reveal identities; also argued about not being required to create new export formats. | Held in part: CLEIR physical-safety exception not shown — speculation about retaliation insufficient without evidence of present threat. Court ordered production with limited redaction (faces of peace officers in certain undercover/plain‑clothes positions may be redacted upon confirmation). Requester entitled to copy in any export format the office’s system can produce, including native functionality or on-site viewing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 848 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio 2006) (PRA construed liberally in favor of disclosure and open government policy)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 894 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 2008) (doubts resolved in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 886 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 2008) (custodian bears burden to prove claimed exemption; exceptions strictly construed)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media, L.L.C. v. Born, 141 Ohio St.3d 422, 23 N.E.3d 719 (Ohio 2014) (security-record exception requires strong evidentiary showing linking disclosure to security risks)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Pinkney, 149 Ohio St.3d 662, 77 N.E.3d 915 (Ohio 2017) (court scrutinizes security claims; some records not security records and may require redaction instead)
- State ex rel. Data Trace Info. Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255, 963 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 2012) (custodian failed to show administrative procedure records were security records)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (CLEIRs two‑part test explained: pertains to law-enforcement matter and high probability of disclosing protected information)
- State ex rel. FitzGerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 47 N.E.3d 124 (Ohio 2015) (contemporary security data may be exempt for identified at-risk employees but not broadly or indefinitely)
- Zuern v. Leis, 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 564 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio 1990) (use-of-deadly-force investigations generally pertain to law-enforcement matters of a criminal nature)