R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) excepts "records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law" from the definition of "public record" for the purposes of Freedom of Information requests, citing State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70, 2005-Ohio-3807, 831 N.E. 2d 787. According to the court, "Officers have
a fundamental constitutional interest in preventing the release of private information when disclosure would create a substantial risk of serious bodily harm, and possibly even death, 'from a perceived likely threat,' so that any such disclosure by the state should be measured under strict scrutiny," Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 (6th Cir. 1998).
In rejecting the Enquirer's action for a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure, the court also cited the case of State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St. 3d 279, 707 N.E. 2d 931 (1999). The court was not persuaded by the Enquirer's argument that "by redacting the officers' names... (the police chief) has blocked any meaningful review of... information relating to discipline and citizen complaints of the wounded officer. Rather, as the court of appeals noted, 'the parties' counsel agreed at oral argument that all the requested documents had been disclosed, except that the officers' identities had been redacted." See: The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig 132 Ohio St.3d 68, 969 N.E.2d 243 (Ohio 2012).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig
|Cite||132 Ohio St.3d 68, 969 N.E.2d 243 (Ohio 2012)|
|Level||State Supreme Court|