Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} On January 11, 2008, a police officer with the Chardon Police Department stopped C.C.'s vehicle after noticing the vehicle's rear license plate was not illuminated and the license plate sticker was expired. As the officer spoke with C.C., he noticed the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the officer found marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
{¶ 3} On January 30, 2008, a complaint was filed in Juvenile Court alleging that C.C. was a delinquent child for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of Marijuana, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On April 14, 2008, C.C. pled true to count two of the complaint, Possession of Marijuana, and count one, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, was dismissed. The court accepted the plea and found C.C. was a delinquent child as charged for having violated R.C.
{¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing, C.C. objected to the imposition of a driver's license suspension because juvenile dispositions are not permitted to be made public, and the suspension of C.C.'s license would be public through his BMV records on the Law Enforcement Automated Data System ("LEADS"). The court disagreed. C.C. was sentenced to 1-30 days in a detention center, which was suspended, 40 hours of community service, a 500 word essay on what C.C. learned from this experience, his driver's license was suspended pursuant to R.C.
R.C.
{¶ 6} C.C. timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶ 7} "[1.] The Trial Court erred in deciding to impose a license suspension as part of the sentence against appellant-defendant after the Court was made aware of the fact his sanction would be accessible tо the public."
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} Juv. R. 37 prescribes restrictions on the use of juvenile records, mandating "[n]o public use shall be made by any person, including a party, of any juvenile court record, including the recording or transcript of any juvenile court hearing, except in the course of an appeаl or as authorized by order of the court or by statute." Juv. R. 37(B).
{¶ 10} Ohio Administrative Code
{¶ 11} There are protections in place to make sure LEADS is not disseminatеd to the public. The administrative code mandates that "[a]ppropriate application and agreement forms shall be executed before access is permitted to LEADS or to data supplied as part of LEADS. These forms must be kept current and will be reviewed and updated biеnnially as part of the agency audit. The completed forms will be filed with LEADS and the user agency." Ohio Adm. Code
{¶ 12} Due to the fact that LEADS information is not public record and protections and prohibitions against improрer use and dissemination are in the *5 administrative code,___ C.C.'s hypothetical argument that a potential employer or college could see his license suspension and believe he has a criminal record is not valid.
{¶ 13} C.C. also raises the argument that his license suspension due to possession of marijuana is accessible to the public via his Bureau of Motor Vehicles record.
{¶ 14} The right of access to public records is codified by R.C.
{¶ 15} "[T]he registrar of motor vehicles, and any employee or contractor of the bureau of motor vehicles, * * * shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity any personal information about an individual that the bureau obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record." R.C.
{¶ 16} However, the statue explicitly specifies that "`[p]ersonal information' does not include information pertaining to a vehicular accident, driving or traffic violation, or driver's status". Ohio Adm.Code. 4501:1-12-02; R.C.
{¶ 17} C.C.'s status information, which may mention his suspеnsion for possession of marijuana, is part of the BMV's record. However its release is prohibited by Juv. R. 37 and, therefore, it is not a public record subject to disclosure pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 18} The court did not violate Juv. R. 37 merely by sentencing C.C. as required by statute. C.C.'s driver's license suspension was ordered properly by the court *7
pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment Entry of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, sentencing C.C. to a driver's license suspensiоn pursuant to R.C.
COLLEEN MARY O'TOOLE, J., concurs in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concurs in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
{¶ 20} I concur in judgment only with the majority but write separately. The majority cites the correct law but the Law Enforcement Automated Data System is not the issue. The issue is the Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") Report for licеnse suspensions. We must control the dissemination of information at the source, specifically, the juvenile court level. The way in which courts disseminate electronic data which may be confidential to the system, under law, i.e., a conviction for drugs is placed into the digital, electronic mаinstream by the court reporting the offense to the *8 BMV. Once it leaves the court's jurisdiction, i.e., "notification of suspension" through the BMV, it becomes a public record. Once the information joins the information highway, it is subject to few, if any, controls as to who may use and see it. In many instances, it transforms unintentionally from a confidential record to a very public record.
{¶ 21} It is the juvenile court's responsibility to control the input. This obviously needs to be dealt with legislatively as to the unintentional consequences of our new information age. The law is clear. The court clearly has the authority undеr R.C.
{¶ 22} I reluctantly concur with the majority. The remedy here is not a prohibition against the trial court from suspending the license of the juvenile. The remedy is to assert a claim against the state for disseminating confidential information оf which is not the subject of this appeal.
Concurrence Opinion
{¶ 23} While the majority's conclusion is correct, the decisional foundation upon which the conclusion rests is faulty.
{¶ 24} At the outset, it is clear that there exists a conflict between both the statutory and court rule protections for juveniles' records found at R.C.
{¶ 25} The majority is correct that C.C.'s driver status is a part of the BMV's record and further that LEADS is not a public record, but the majority then asserts that the release of his status information, or more specifically his suspension for drug possession, is prohibited by Juv. R. 37 and is therefore not a public record subject to disclosure. The majority further asserts that both the revised code section and its companion administrative code section pertaining to driver's privacy protection "[do] not рrovide for disclosure of information like a driver's status * * * which [is] not classified as personal information." The majority then concludes that "C.C. has presented no evidence, absent a LEADS report, which is not a public record, that his driver's license suspension due to Possession of Marijuana would aрpear on his BMV record and/or be available to the public," thus the decision below should be affirmed.
{¶ 26} Quite the opposite is true. C.C.'s BMV abstract containing his driver's status as in suspension pursuant to a drug possession adjudication is clearly a public record and is also clearly not shielded by Juv. R. 37(B). Thus, it is for these reasons that there was no error by the trial court.
{¶ 27} The juvenile court had to suspend C.C.'s driver's license and had to report the suspension to the BMV pursuant to the mandate of R.C.
{¶ 28} BMV records are public records pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 29} Moreover, while LEADS information is not public, a private campus police department mаy participate and have access to LEADS data pursuant to O.A.C. 4501:2-10-03, and thus may presumably be able to conduct a criminal background check on an applicant for the admissions office. C.C.'s point about LEADS is well-taken, but the fact remains that while some information contained in LEADS is not of рublic record and the public does not have access to LEADS, C.C.'s driver's status as set forth in his BMV abstract is of public record and a campus admissions office could access an applicant's abstract without the use of LEADS through the campus police.
{¶ 30} C.C. seeks protection under Juv. R. 37(B) which рrovides: "No public use shall be made by any person, including a party, of any juvenile court record, including the recording or a transcript of any juvenile court hearing, except in the course of an appeal or as authorized by order of the court or by statute." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 31} Inasmuch as a license suspension for drug possession is mandatory and notification to the BMV of such adjudication by means of an abstract of the court record, *11 which must include the nature of the offense, is also statutorily mandated, Juv. R. 37(B) provides no shield or protection for C.C. and cannot form the basis for a reversal of his adjudication. *1