On December 28, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a 4-1 decision in State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus. The Court held that the exception to the Ohio Public Records Act for confidential law enforcement investigatory records does not extend beyond the completion of the trial for which the information was gathered. Therefore, after the original criminal trial, the information must be released upon a proper request under the Ohio Public Records Act.
In 2013, an attorney working for the Ohio Innocence Project, investigating a 2007 murder conviction, requested the police records related to the arrest and investigation in the case. The Columbus Division of Police (DOP) denied the request, stating that no records would be produced until the completion of the criminal case. However, the criminal case was already over and all appeals had been exhausted.
Columbus denied the request under 149.43(A)(1)(h) of the Ohio Revised Code, which allows confidential law enforcement investigatory records to be exempt from Public Records Requests, and R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) which protects specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product. The attorney then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the disclosure of the records, which brought the matter before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Columbus argued, among other things, that the records contained the identities of witnesses and informants. Plaintiff argued that it would be impossible to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals without access to such records.
The Court held that Columbus should have initially granted the request, as the original trial had long been completed at the time of the request. However, the Court also held that Columbus did not need to produce records that would create a high probability of disclosure of a suspect who had not been charged with the offense, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised.
The Court stated the specific investigatory work product exception does not extend beyond the completion of the trial for which the information was gathered. Columbus had a clear obligation to provide the records and therefore was ordered to pay attorney fees, court costs and statutory damages.
Law enforcement agencies should examine their policies and practices in responding to public records requests in light of this ruling.
Please feel free to contact FHKAD attorney Frank Hatfield at fhatfield@fishelhass.com with any questions about public records matters.