John Doe, et al. v. Miami Township, et al.

Summary

This opinion and order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a civil rights and state-law privacy action against Miami Township and its law director. Plaintiffs alleged that the Township violated their constitutional rights and invaded their privacy by producing and disclosing video footage in response to a public-records request. The court analyzes municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, intimate association, and procedural due process issues.

Holdings

1. The First Amendment does not protect the right to intimate association; that right falls under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Plaintiffs cannot assert a procedural due process claim based solely on reputational injury from the state's release of the video, as the stigma-plus test requires a deprivation of an additional interest beyond reputation.
3. Miami Township's release of the video did not violate plaintiffs' substantive due process right to intimate association because it did not directly and substantially burden their right to associate, and the action survived rational basis review.
4. Miami Township is not liable under § 1983 because no underlying constitutional violation occurred.
5. Braun is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because no constitutional violation occurred.
6. Plaintiffs failed to establish a private cause of action for damages under the Ohio Constitution.
7. Miami Township and Braun are immune from the invasion of privacy claim under the Act because the claim is based on Ohio common law, and Braun's actions did not fall within the exceptions for malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against Miami Township on their First Amendment right to intimate association claim.
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against Miami Township on their Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process claims.
3. Whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims (federal and state) against them.
4. Whether Miami Township is liable under § 1983 for Braun's actions.
5. Whether Braun is entitled to qualified immunity.
6. Whether the Ohio Constitution provides a private cause of action for damages.
7. Whether defendants are immune from the state-law invasion of privacy claim under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act.

Disposition

affirmed