We find that the court of appeals erred in exempting from release virtually all of the KSU investigative file and accordingly remand the case to the court of appeals for release of further documents.
The Ohio Public Records Aсt, R.C. 149.43, requires public officials to provide access to all public records upon request from a member of the рublic. State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988),
Admittedly, reversing the court of appeals’ decision as to the disclosure of records on the basis of a factual determination, following its in camera review of the records, requires finding an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Hamblin v. Brooklyn (1993),
As public records, “[l]aw еnforcement investigatory records must be disclosed unless they are excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43.” Natl. Broadcasting Co., supra, at paragraрh one of the syllabus. However, respondents argue the documents are exempt “confidential law enforcement investigatory records” under R.C. 149.43(A)(2).
Exempting the records from release on that basis requires a two-step analysis. “First, is the record a confidential law enforcement record? Second, would release of the record .‘create a high probability of disclosure’ of any one of four kinds of information specified in R.C. 149.43(A)(2)?” State ex rel. Polovischak v. Mayfield (1990),
In fact, “the General Assembly sought to guard against these exceptions swallowing up the rule which makes public records available.” State ex rel. Beacon Journаl Publishing Co. v. Univ. of Akron (1980),
Relators argue that KSU wrongfully attempted to “privatize” a crime by granting confidential informer status to the victim who received the threatening notes. Yet Doe, as a witness fearful for his personal safety, qualifies as a “witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised” under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(b). See State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland (1992),
However, we find no basis under the facts to extend confidentiality to the text of the threatening letters. The letter writer clearly knew that Doe had reported the letters to the police, and no confidentiality interest protects their text. If the victim’s name and any identifying features are delеted, the text of the letters would not, directly or by inference, identify the informant. Thus, releasing the redacted letters creates no “high probability of disclosure” of the confidential informant’s identity.
The court of appeals also abused its discretion in applying the uncharged-suspect exception, R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a), to exempt some internal documents of the admissions office. Police did not create these routine administrative documents, which were used for other than investigative purposes; in fact, most of these predated the investigation. More important, release of these documents would not create a “high probability” of disclosing either the informant’s identity or the names of uncharged suspects. Nor would releаse of these documents compromise “confidential investigatory techniques” protected by R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). See Natl. Broadcasting Co., supra,
Thus the cоurt of appeals needs to release certain student appointment forms, requests for leave, a seventеen-page schedule of visits and the computer printout of admissions office employees. (Files 34, 35, 39 and 41.) Of course, the court of appeals may make any appropriate redactions, e.g., Social Security numbers.
Respondents also overused thе exemption for investigatory work product, R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). That exemption “protects an investigator’s deliberative and subjective analysis, his interpretation of the facts, his theory of the case, and his investigative plans. The exception does not encompass the objective facts and observations he has recorded.” NBC, supra, at paragraph three of the syllabus. See, also, State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1991),
Accordingly, the court of appeals is directed to further inspect factual reports .and release documents in selected files after аny needed redaction to protect the identity of the confidential informant and various uncharged suspects. (Seе files 7, 22 [report on Cunningham], 31 [summary report] and 38 [summary report].)
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for additional release of documents as follows:
a. Release the text of the threatening letters after deleting the recipient’s name and any other language that would identity the victim. (Files 1, 2, 4, 11 and 42.)
b. Release nineteen student apрointment forms (file 39), twenty-three requests for leave (file 34), the seventeen-page schedule of visits (file 34), eighty-two applications for leave (file 35), and a computer printout of all admissions office employees (file 41) after any appropriate redaction (for instance, to delete Social Security numbers).
c. Release, after apрropriate redaction such as to conceal the identity of the informant and uncharged suspects, the factual reports in files 7, 22 (report on Cunningham), 31 (summary report) and 38 (summary report).
Judgment accordingly.