State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St. 3d 382, 2004-Ohio-1581

805 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio 2004) · Supreme Court of Ohio · April 14, 2004

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that mandamus was an appropriate remedy for seeking access to court records under Ohio’s Public Records Act. It concluded that records sealed under Ohio Revised Code § 2953.52 are excluded from the definition of public records because their release is prohibited by law. The court also upheld § 2953.52 against facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, affirming the denial of the requested writ.

Holdings

  1. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to seek compliance with the Public Records Act and may also be used when the asserted right of access depends on a constitutional challenge.
  2. Court records are public records under R.C. 149.43 while open, but records sealed under R.C. 2953.52 cease to be public records because their release is prohibited by state law.
  3. R.C. 2953.52 is not facially unconstitutional because it permits sealing only after a hearing and balancing of the person's privacy interests against the legitimate needs of the government to maintain the records, while leaving public access to the trial and records available before sealing.
  4. R.C. 2953.52 was not unconstitutional as applied because the trial was public, the records remained open for more than five weeks after trial, and the Enquirer had ample opportunity to access and copy them before sealing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy for enforcing access rights under Ohio's Public Records Act and for presenting a constitutional challenge to the records-sealing statute.
  2. Whether court records sealed under R.C. 2953.52 remain public records under R.C. 149.43.
  3. Whether R.C. 2953.52 is facially unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the public's constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings and records.
  4. Whether R.C. 2953.52 was unconstitutional as applied to the Enquirer and whether the trial court properly balanced the relevant public and private interests.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (11)

  • State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Bond, 98 Ohio St. 3d 146, 2002-Ohio-7117, 781 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 50(followed)
  • State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe, 77 Ohio St. 3d 350, 355, 673 N.E.2d 1360 (1997)(followed)
  • State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St. 3d 79, 83, 526 N.E.2d 786 (1988)(followed)
  • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 478 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1986)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 73 Ohio St. 3d 19, 21, 652 N.E.2d 179 (1995)(followed)
  • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Waters, 67 Ohio St. 3d 321, 324, 617 N.E.2d 1110 (1993)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. University of Toledo Foundation, 65 Ohio St. 3d 258, 266, 602 N.E.2d 1159 (1992)(followed)
  • Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St. 2d 374, 377, 421 N.E.2d 1303 (1981)(followed)
  • State v. D.H.W., 686 So. 2d 1331, 1336 (Fla. 1996)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court