Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office had not established that all records in an investigative file were exempt from disclosure under the uncharged-suspect exception to Ohio’s Public Records Act. The court reversed and remanded for review of the records and disclosure of nonexempt portions after redaction of identifying information.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether all of the withheld investigative records were exempt from disclosure under the uncharged-suspect exception to the Ohio Public Records Act.
- Whether portions of the investigative records could be disclosed after redacting information that would create a high probability of revealing the uncharged suspect's identity.
Holdings
- The uncharged-suspect exception applies only to portions of records whose release would create a high probability of disclosing the suspect's identity; the exception does not categorically exempt every record in an investigative file.
- The lower court must review the sealed records individually and order disclosure of records or portions of records after redacting the priest's name, address, church-identifying information, and other specific information whose release would create a high probability of revealing his identity.
Key quotations
“Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, are strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception.” (at 226)
“Nevertheless, this exception applies only to those portions of records that, if released, would create a high probability of disclosure of the suspect’s identity.” (at 227)
“Based on our independent review of the sealed investigative records, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause so that the court can review the sealed records and order the disclosure of those records following the redaction of those portions of the record that are subject to the uncharged-suspect exemption” (at 228)
Factual background
Beth Rocker reported in January 2008 that she had been sexually assaulted as a child in the early 1990s by a priest associated with her childhood church. The matter was presented to a grand jury, but no indictment was returned. After the investigation concluded, Rocker requested the entire investigative file, but the sheriff's office released only the incident report and withheld the remaining records.
Procedural history
Rocker requested the entire investigative file concerning a priest investigated for alleged criminal sexual conduct. The sheriff's office released the incident report but withheld the remaining records. After an in camera review, the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County denied Rocker's mandamus claim, holding that the records were exempt confidential law-enforcement investigatory records. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded for record-by-record review and disclosure after appropriate redactions.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals for Guernsey County must review the sealed investigative records and order disclosure of records or portions of records after redacting the priest's name, address, the name, location, and diocese of the church where he worked, and other specific identifying information subject to the uncharged-suspect exemption.