Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the Cincinnati Enquirer’s request for a writ of mandamus concerning Cincinnati police body-camera footage because the city had produced the videos and its redactions of covert officers’ faces were proper. The court held that the city acted in bad faith by voluntarily releasing the records only after the mandamus action began, awarding the Enquirer reasonable attorney fees and court costs under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the city properly redacted the faces of plainclothes police officers from body-camera videos under Ohio public-records law and constitutional privacy principles.
- Whether the Enquirer was entitled to a writ of mandamus after the city provided the requested videos during the litigation.
- Whether the Enquirer was entitled to attorney fees and court costs because the city acted in bad faith by voluntarily releasing the records after the mandamus action commenced but before the court determined whether disclosure was required.
Holdings
- The city's redactions were proper because the uncontradicted evidence established that the plainclothes officers operated in covert capacities and faced a risk of bodily harm if their identities were publicly disclosed.
- The Enquirer was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs because the city acted in bad faith when it voluntarily released the videos after the mandamus action began but before the court issued an order determining whether the records should have been produced.
Key quotations
“Exceptions to disclosure under the act are strictly construed against the records custodian, who has the burden to establish the applicability of any claimed exception from disclosure.” (¶ 6)
“For these reasons, we conclude that the city did not act in good faith in voluntarily releasing the videos to the Enquirer for the first time after the Enquirer commenced the mandamus action but before this court issued an order concluding whether the records should have been produced.” (¶ 17)
“Because the city provided the requested body-camera videos, and because the city’s redactions were proper, we deny the Enquirer’s request for a writ of mandamus.” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Cincinnati police officers arrested Richard Coleman and James Crawley after responding to a service call, and the officers used Tasers when the men resisted. Body cameras recorded the incident. The Cincinnati Enquirer requested the footage, but the city initially denied the request under the confidential-law-enforcement-investigatory-records exception and later released 19 videos after the mandamus action began. The city redacted the faces of plainclothes officers, submitting evidence that those officers worked in covert capacities and faced an increased risk of harm if identified.
Procedural history
The Cincinnati Enquirer requested body-camera footage from the Cincinnati Police Department, and the city initially denied the request under the confidential-law-enforcement-investigatory-records exception. The Enquirer filed an original mandamus action. After the action commenced, the city voluntarily released 19 videos, subject to redactions of the faces of plainclothes officers. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an alternative writ, ordered the videos submitted under seal, received briefing and supplemental evidence, and then denied the writ as moot while awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
Remand instructions
The court retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney fees after the Enquirer files briefs and evidence detailing the actual hours expended and the reasonableness of the hours and hourly rates; the city may respond.