Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a routine police incident report is a public record subject to immediate disclosure under Ohio's Public Records Act, even when requested by a criminal defendant in a related proceeding. The court rejected the mayor's argument that the defendant was limited to discovery under Criminal Rule 16 and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling access to the report. The court also awarded attorney fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a criminal defendant may obtain a routine police offense or incident report through a Public Records Act mandamus action rather than solely through criminal discovery.
- Whether the requested police incident report was exempt from disclosure under Ohio's Public Records Act.
- Whether Rasul-Bey was entitled to attorney fees for obtaining disclosure of the report.
Holdings
- A criminal defendant is not barred from seeking a routine offense or incident report through a mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 merely because a related criminal proceeding is pending; Crim.R. 16 is the exclusive discovery mechanism within the criminal proceeding itself, but it does not foreclose a separate public-records mandamus action for records outside the trial-preparation exemption.
- Routine offense and incident reports are public records subject to immediate release upon request and are not exempt from disclosure merely because they initiate or relate to a criminal investigation.
- Rasul-Bey was entitled to attorney fees because his mandamus action conferred a sufficient public benefit by compelling a public official to comply with clear precedent requiring immediate disclosure of incident reports.
Key quotations
“Routine offense and incident reports are subject to immediate release upon request” (at 120)
“If release is refused, an action in mandamus, pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C), will lie to secure release of the records.” (at 120)
“But this holding does not mean that Rasul-Bey is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus simply because he is the defendant in a related criminal proceeding.” (at 121)
“Therefore, we grant a peremptory writ to compel the mayor to provide access to the requested police incident report.” (at 122)
Factual background
Rasul-Bey requested access to a police incident report concerning alleged misconduct on December 9, 2000. The mayor's office acknowledged that the report existed but stated that the mayor had no duty to provide access and directed Rasul-Bey to seek it from the prosecutor through criminal discovery. The prosecutor refused disclosure, and the discovery motion in Rasul-Bey's criminal case was not ruled upon.
Procedural history
Rasul-Bey made repeated written requests for a police incident report concerning alleged misconduct, but the mayor's office did not provide access and directed him to seek the report through discovery in his pending criminal case. After the prosecutor refused disclosure and the criminal-court discovery motion remained unresolved, Rasul-Bey filed an original mandamus action. The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ and awarded attorney fees.
Remand instructions
The mayor was compelled to provide Rasul-Bey access to the requested police incident report. Rasul-Bey's counsel was ordered to submit a bill and supporting documentation for attorney fees, together with evidence that Rasul-Bey had paid or was obligated to pay the fees.