State ex rel. Williams v. City of ClevelandState ex rel. Williams v. City of Cleveland
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Douglas, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright, H. Brown, Resnick, Holmes
Public records -- Trial preparation and confidential law enforcement investigatory records from aggravated murder conviction cases -- Exempt from disclosure, when --
Relators-appellants, Willie Lee Jester, Anthony Apanovitch, and Donald Williams, were individually convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. All direct appeals to which appellants are entitled have been exhausted. State v. Jester (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 147, 512 N.E.2d 962, certiorari denied (1988), 484 U.S. 1047, 108 S.Ct. 785, 98 L.Ed.2d 871; State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 514 N.E.2d 394; and State v. Williams (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 528 N.E.2d 910, certiorari denied (1989), 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1176, 103 L.Ed.2d 238. Appellants have individually requested that the city of Cleveland and various governmental officials, respondents-appellees and cross-appellants (collectively referred to as “appellees“), make records available to them for inspection and copying in accordance with Ohio‘s open records law,
The court of appeals conducted an in camera review of the records in each of the three cases. The court partially granted each of the writs, ordering the release of some records and denying appellants access to other records.
Appellants, Williams, Jester and Apanovitch, separately appealed to this court in case Nos. 91-572, 91-580 and 91-592, respectively. Appellees filed cross-appeals.2 The three cases have been consolidated for purposes of final disposition.3
The causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right.
Douglas, J. The central question in each of the cases before us is whether certain records demanded by appellants should have been made available to them. Upon a thorough review of the records, we find the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in ordering some records released, some released as redacted, and some records not released. We affirm the court of appeals in each case in all respects.
As a threshold matter, it is clear that an action in mandamus is available to each appellant. In State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 55, 560 N.E.2d 1313, syllabus, we held that “[a] criminal defendant who has exhausted the direct appeals of his conviction may avail himself of
As a consequence,
A
Trial Preparation Exemption
Trial preparation records are exempt from disclosure and are defined in
“* * * [A]ny record that contains information that is specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and personal trial preparation of an attorney.”
We have recognized, on numerous occasions, the limited availability of the trial preparation exception. See State ex rel. Zuern v. Leis (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 564 N.E.2d 81; State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Univ. of Akron (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 392, 398, 18 O.O.3d 534, 538, 415 N.E.2d 310, 314; and State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 526 N.E.2d 786 (”NBC I“).5 In Beacon Journal, supra, at 398, 18 O.O.3d at 538, 415 N.E.2d at 314, we noted that “* * * the wording of the statute indicates that the General Assembly sought to guard against these exceptions swallowing up the rule which makes public records available. * * *”
The court of appeals, in each of the cases, followed this court‘s mandate in NBC I, supra, paragraph four of the syllabus, and conducted an in camera review of the records. After review, the court applied the trial preparation exemption, concluding that some of the records were exempt, in whole or in part, from release. Specifically, the court of appeals applied the exemption to
We have carefully inspected the foregoing records in question and are convinced that the court of appeals did not err in applying the trial preparation exemption to these records. The court followed and correctly applied previous decisions from this court, rejecting an expansive interpretation of
B
Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Exemption
“* * *
“(c) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product;
“(d) Information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel, a crime victim, a witness, or a confidential information source.”
In all three cases, the court of appeals found that some records were exempt from release on the basis of the “specific investigatory work product” exemption,
In Rauch, we affirmed the principle that exceptions to the disclosure requirements of
In NBC I, supra, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus, we held that:
“2. A governmental body refusing to release records has the burden of proving that the records are excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43 .“3. The specific investigatory work product exception,
R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) , protects an investigator‘s deliberative and subjective analysis, his interpretations 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.”
We further explained that:
“* * * The content of the record, not the fact that it was created during the investigation of a specific crime, determines whether material may be withheld as a ‘specific investigatory work product’ exception.
“Specific investigatory work product can best be defined as material that demonstrably contains or reveals the theories, mental impressions and thought processes of the investigator. * * *” Id. at 83-84, 526 N.E.2d at 790.
Appellants take exception to the court of appeals’ application of
We disagree with appellants’ arguments. Our review of the records indicates that the court of appeals properly applied the work product exception. Further, we decline appellants’ invitation to overrule Rauch. In determining which records were public records subject to disclosure, and which records were exempt from release under the “specific investigatory work product” exceptions, the court of appeals properly applied and relied on the NBC I and Rauch decisions.6
The court of appeals, in case No. 91-572 (Williams), exempted thirty-one records, in whole or in part, based on threats to the physical safety of informants or witnesses.
Appellants challenge the court of appeals’ decision in case No. 91-572, arguing that the appellees failed to satisfy the burden imposed on them to prove that the records withheld from disclosure are exempt under
We have reviewed the records in question and conclude that the court of appeals in case Nos. 91-572 and 91-592 properly determined that certain records were exempt or not exempt under
C
Conclusion
The court of appeals, in each of the cases, conducted an extensive in camera inspection of the records. The court concluded, among other things, that some of the records should be released in full, some not disclosed, and some released only after redacting certain portions. In rendering its decisions, we are convinced that the court was aware that
Accordingly, the judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Holmes, J., dissents.
Notes
“All public records shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours. Upon request, a person responsible for public records shall make copies available at cost, within a reasonable period of time. In order to facilitate broader access to public records, governmental units shall maintain public records in such a manner that they can be made available for inspection in accordance with this division.”