State ex rel. Souare v. Ravenna Police Dept.

2026-Ohio-2981 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Portage County · August 3, 2026 · No. 2025-P-0092

Summary

The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals denied Elhadj Alpha Mahmoud Souare’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking public records from the Ravenna Police Department. The court held that Souare failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the requested records existed and were maintained by the department, and that a public office has no duty to create or provide nonexistent records. The court also addressed the Public Records Act, the confidential law-enforcement investigatory-record exemption, and the effect of records allegedly provided in criminal discovery.

Holdings

  1. The petition for a writ of mandamus was properly denied because Souare failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the requested records existed and were maintained by Ravenna Police.
  2. The March 6, 2026 supplemental filing was properly treated as a more detailed version of the original request, but because it sought information from an agency involved in the criminal investigation after Souare had been indicted, it constituted a demand for criminal discovery under Crim.R. 16(H) and was not a proper substitute for criminal discovery in a mandamus action.
  3. Souare was not entitled to statutory damages under the circumstances.
  4. Sanctions against Ravenna and referral to disciplinary counsel were unwarranted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Souare established by clear and convincing evidence that Ravenna Police possessed or maintained the requested public records, thereby creating a clear legal duty enforceable through mandamus.
  2. Whether a public office must create or produce records that do not exist or are not in its possession or control.
  3. Whether Souare's March 6, 2026 supplemental filing, submitted after his indictment and concerning an agency involved in the criminal investigation, constituted a criminal-discovery demand under Crim.R. 16(H) rather than a proper public-records request in mandamus.
  4. Whether Souare was entitled to statutory damages, sanctions, attorney fees, costs, or disciplinary referral.

Disposition

denied

Cases Cited (25)

  • State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 2007-Ohio-4798, ¶ 10(followed)
  • Lundeen v. Turner, 2020-Ohio-274, ¶ 4 fn. 1(followed)
  • In re Estate of Centorbi, 2011-Ohio-2267, ¶ 18(followed)
  • Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶¶ 25, 27(followed)
  • State ex rel. Berry v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-5774, ¶ 51(followed)
  • State ex rel. Wallace v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2000-Ohio-213, ¶ 16(followed)
  • State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 2008-Ohio-1770, paragraph two of the syllabus(followed)
  • State ex rel. Howard v. Shuler, 2025-Ohio-4964, ¶ 31(followed)
  • State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 166 (1977)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Kriss v. Richards, 102 Ohio St. 455 (1921)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…