Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371

Background

On August 21, 2017 a judge was shot outside the Jefferson County Courthouse; an exterior courthouse security camera recorded the incident.
Associated Press reporter Andrew Welsh‑Huggins requested the prosecutor’s copy of that courthouse video under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
Jefferson County Prosecutor denied the request claiming exemptions including the "security record" exemption in R.C. 149.433(A)(1)/(B)(1).
Welsh‑Huggins sued in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75; the special master and Court of Claims ordered release (with limited redactions for undercover officers).
The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the video was an exempt security record; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, reinstating the Court of Claims’ order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Welsh‑Huggins)	Defendant's Argument (Prosecutor)	Held
Whether the exterior courthouse security‑camera video is a “security record” under R.C. 149.433(A)(1)	Video does not show it was actually used to protect/maintain courthouse security; not squarely within exemption	Video content and system capabilities reveal blind spots, vulnerabilities, emergency‑response methods—disclosure would harm security	Not shown to fall squarely within the exemption; video not exempt on the record presented
Whether a records custodian must produce competent, admissible evidence to support an asserted exemption in an R.C. 2743.75 proceeding	Yes; custodian must prove exemption unless it is obvious from the record	Contended requester must first prove entitlement and that custodian’s evidence requirement is less demanding	Custodian must produce competent, admissible evidence to establish an exemption unless applicability is clear from the record
Allocation and quantum of proof in R.C. 2743.75 proceedings	Requester bears burden of persuasion (assumed clear and convincing) to obtain relief	Argued requester must satisfy burden before custodian need produce evidence	Requester carries burden of persuasion (assumed clear and convincing); custodian bears burden of production to plead and prove applicability of any exemption
Whether ordering redacted copies (or producing requested format) unlawfully forces custodian to create a new record	Court’s redaction order is lawful; nonexempt portions must be released	Court improperly required creation/compilation of a new record	No error: producing redacted copies does not unlawfully require creation of a new record when duplication/redaction is reasonably achievable

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Plunderbund Media, L.L.C. v. Born, 141 Ohio St.3d 422, 25 N.E.3d 988 (Ohio 2014) (expert testimony can show records are directly used to protect security and thus exempt)
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018) (rejected argument that video content alone proved it was a security record)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones‑Kelly, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 886 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 2008) (custodian bears burden to prove a requested record falls squarely within an exception)
State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 526 N.E.2d 786 (Ohio 1988) (requires individualized scrutiny and redaction of records when portions are exempt)
State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 932 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio 2010) (Supreme Court independently reviews records/exemptions)
State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 732 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 2000) (conclusory affidavits insufficient to establish an exemption)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 71 N.E.3d 258 (Ohio 2016) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)