State owes jailhouse lawyer $1,000 over record denial

From The Columbus Dispatch His background of drug-manufacturing and violence aside, James Carr Sr. might have made for a decent lawyer.

The jailhouse lawyer hit the law books after prison officials illegally denied his requests for a copy of a single memorandum, winning $1,000 in damages from the Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday.

Carr’s well-researched legal briefs, complete with propositions of law and citations of prior court rulings, helped prompt the justices to award him victory in the public-records case by a 6-1 vote.

Carr’s court fight began in 2012 when he asked an official at the London Correctional Institution, west of Columbus, for a copy of a chaplain’s memo about acceptable religious materials mailed by outside ministries.

Carr’s three requests for the memorandum — despite identifying its topic, author and approximate time frame — were repeatedly denied by a prison official as “ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome.”

He then appealed to the 12th District Court of Appeals, where the memo finally surfaced in legal filings, and the judges upheld the denial of Carr’s records requests as proper.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in its unsigned opinion, said Carr’s requests for the memo were not improper, the arguments of the state aside that he had not “fairly described” what he was seeking.

“No reasonable public employee responsible for public records could have thought that a request for a single document was overbroad or burdensome,” the opinion said.

A records request that seeks all emails and correspondence between an individual and a government agency over a two-month period is not overly broad, the court found.

The justices also reinforced prior rulings that “perfection” — such as identifying the date a memo is written — is not required in identifying records sought in requests. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger cast the dissenting vote in the case.

The ruling provides some guidance to public officials amid a growing trend of rejecting records requests as “overly broad” in the wake of rulings in recent years.

In addition to the maximum $1,000 in damages he will receive, the justices also instructed the appellate court to determine how much in costs Carr is entitled to recover for pursuing his lawsuit.

Carr, 41, is scheduled to be released from prison in 2018 after being sentenced to 13 years in prison for felonious assault and drug crimes in Clermont County, east of Cincinnati.

rludlow@dispatch.com

@RandyLudlow

Editorial from The Enquirer: Keep last shred of gun permit accountability

Editorial from The Cincinnati Enquirer If you’re an Ohio concealed carry permit holder, your permit records are already confidential – protected like they are national secrets. They’re even safe from journalists, who are allowed to view the permits but not copy them or take any notes.

But under a recent amendment proposed for the Senate version of Ohio House Bill 64, journalists wouldn’t even be allowed to review the permits. Some Ohio lawmakers want to remove this last shred of accountability for sheriff departments, which hold the records, by shielding them entirely from view. That’s a mistake.

With access to gun permit records, journalists around the country have helped keep you, your friends and neighbors safe by revealing permit mistakes and oversights. The New York Times found in 2011 that 5,000 North Carolina permit-holders had been arrested in the last five years for felonies and misdemeanors, excluding traffic crimes. The South Florida Sun Sentinel found in 2007 that Florida had issued 1,400 concealed carry permits to felons who had pleaded guilty or no contest to their crimes. Hundreds more permit-holders kept their license to carry despite outstanding warrants, domestic violence injunctions and misdemeanor convictions for reckless behavior with firearms. Such mistakes may not be the norm, but we have a right – a need, even – to know when they occur.

The lesson is clear: It’s important to hold government officials accountable for the permit-granting and -review process, and journalists provide an important check on the system on behalf of the public. Journalists in Ohio can’t do the type of wide-scale stories mentioned above because Ohio’s law is so restrictive. It would be far better if lawmakers were looking to loosen the law protecting permits, not totally block access.

Journalists take seriously their unique watchdog role: to strengthen public safety by finding loopholes and errors in the review process for permits. These are goals everyone should support. Lawmakers should reject the amendment that blocks journalists’ access to concealed carry permits. No access means no accountability.

Akron Beacon Journal editorial: Why concealed carry permits must remain public records

Editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal Yet another misguided effort is underway at the Statehouse to dismantle even limited access to records about who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. This time, language to close those records completely was slipped into the massive state budget bill now moving through the Ohio Senate.

There, Joe Uecker, a Miami Township Republican, argues that journalists no longer should be allowed to view concealed carry permits on file at county sheriffs’ offices. The public already is barred. Uecker asserts that printing the names of permit holders would put them at risk of burglaries and thefts.

Such concerns are vastly overblown. As a practical matter, what access journalists have hardly lends itself to reporting the names of all permit holders, as has happened elsewhere. In Ohio, journalists are barred from taking notes or making copies.

What must be given more weight are the real risks of denying all access to concealed carry permits, as opposed to speculation that something might happen to permit holders if information were released.

Blocking access completely would end oversight of how county sheriffs are meeting their responsibilities to perform background checks on permit applicants and take fingerprints. Investigative journalism in other states has uncovered incidences of illegally granted permits.

Along with House Bill 48, which would allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon into day care centers, private aircraft and government buildings, the last-minute language jammed into the budget bill builds on a dangerous view of Second Amendment rights as trumping almost all concerns for public safety.

Editorial from The Findlay Courier: Secret database

Editorial from The Findlay Courier Before Ohio’s budget bills get approved, they almost always turn into a grocery list of add-ons that have little to nothing to do with day-to-day government.

The Senate’s budget plan is no exception. Since the House handed over its budget proposal, the Senate has proposed hundreds of changes. Among them is a provision that would end the ability of journalists to review lists of names of concealed-carry permit holders maintained by sheriffs’ offices.

Current law grants journalists access to the concealed-carry lists, but prohibits them from copying or writing down any information. Use is rare. Reporters will sometimes use the lists to determine if a person accused of a crime has been issued a permit or if a felon had been improperly approved to carry a gun.

But Sen. Joe Uecker, R-Loveland, wants the exception eliminated. He says the publication of a permit holder’s name can violate their privacy and could compromise their safety.

Uecker, a concealed carry and National Rifle Association instructor and former police officer, failed in getting a similar measure approved in the last Legislature.

If successful this time, concealed carry records would be sealed, with the only access available through a court order. Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said sheriffs should not be allowed to maintain secret databases of permit holders.

Once “government decides to create a record, the law in Ohio couldn’t be clearer that it is an open record unless there is a compelling reason to close it,” Hetzel told The Columbus Dispatch. Uecker’s proposal stems, in part, from The Sandusky Register’s publication of names and dates of birth of about 2,500 concealed-carry permit holders in 2007. Most Ohio newspapers, including The Courier, have never published lists.

The privacy concerns seemed to be addressed several years ago, when lawmakers amended state law to effectively prevent newspapers from publishing lists of permit holders. Journalists aren’t allowed to bring in writing utensils with them or make copies when they review the lists.

Certainly, both the First and Second Amendments are important, but there needs to be balance. The Uecker proposal tilts the scale too far, and shouldn’t be rushed through on the tail of a budget bill.

Instead, the Senate should pull the add-on, and give it the discussion it deserves.

Delaware Gazette editorial: CCW provision has no place in budget bill

Editorial from the Delaware Gazette: Your right to an open and transparent government in Ohio will take another hit if a provision added to the Ohio Senate’s budget bill Tuesday is allowed to survive.

The provision would lock up the names of Ohioans who possess permits for carrying concealed weapons and prevent journalists from seeing the records held by county sheriff’s offices, unless they obtain court orders.

Newspapers and other news organizations will continue to do the job that readers, viewers and listeners expect of them — serving as a watchdog over government offices. If the new provision is allowed to stand, taxpayers will be forced to bear the costs of obtaining court orders, and possible litigation, over these records.

A little history: When Ohio lawmakers first passed a concealed-carry law in 2005, newspaper reporters and other journalists had full access to the names of permit holders — a valuable tool for reporting on the law’s utilization, trends and identifying criminal offenders with permits. Proponents of the law were happy just to get it on the books — flawed in their eyes — and then set about changing it slightly each year.

Since then, the law has incrementally been altered to loosen restrictions and to make the names of permit holders less available.

The latest version of the law allows journalists to view conceal-carry records but ridiculously forbids them from taking any notes or requesting copies.

Tuesday’s provision — introduced by Sen. Joe Uecker, a Republican from southwest Ohio — shuts the door completely and blocks access to the records for journalists and thus the public.

Lawmakers in Ohio continue to be in the pocket of the powerful gun lobby and — despite the many problems our state has, most notably the financing of public schools — always have time to tinker with the conceal-carry law, to make it more to the gun lobby’s liking.

The Ohio Newspaper Association and other newspapers around the state, including The Gazette, believe this provision should be stripped out of the budget bill. In fact, state lawmakers should be going in the opposite direction — and reversing the restrictions they have placed on journalists viewing the names of permit holders.

Chronicle-Telegram editorial: Ohio's county sheriffs would hand out concealed-carry permits in secret if the state Senate has its way

Editorial from The Chronicle-Telegram A kitchen-sink addition to the Senate's version of the state budget bill, disclosed Tuesday, would strip journalists of the limited access they have to records about permits to carry concealed handguns.

Budget bills are notorious catchalls, addressing many issues that have nothing to do with budgets and might not withstand scrutiny if they had to be debated separately. They tend to sail unimpeded into law if they're tucked into a bill that the General Assembly must pass by June 30 to keep the state operating.

A lot of bad laws get made this way, and a complete prohibition against access to concealed-carry records would be another one.

As it is, the public has no access to the records except through journalists, whose access is absurdly limited. Journalists can see the records but can't copy them or take notes about them. The provision in the budget bill would eliminate even that access.

If it became law, every concealed-carry handgun license would be handled outside the scrutiny of anyone but the applicant or permit holder and the sheriff charged with issuing, renewing, suspending or revoking the permit. Ohioans would be expected to trust their county sheriffs to make the right decision every time.

Trust ought to be earned, not expected, especially when government officials are involved. Like ordinary citizens, they make mistakes. Unlike ordinary citizens, they have special powers, in this case to decide who gets and keeps permits to carry concealed handguns. Sheriffs ought to be subject to scrutiny so the public can assess their performance.

Yes, most sheriffs are responsible and diligent. So are most permit seekers and holders. But after The New York Times reviewed permits issued in North Carolina, a state where permit holders' identities are public, it reported in December 2011 that more than 2,400 permit holders (roughly 1 percent of the total) had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic offenses, over a five-year period. At least 10 had been convicted of murder or manslaughter.

Under the Second Amendment, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but public access to records concerning concealed-carry permits is no infringement on that right. In fact, it is serves the important purpose of ensuring that government is neither infringing on the right nor administering it carelessly.

The Senate should drop the provision from its version of the budget bill. If it fails to do so, a conference committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill should drop the provision.

Secrecy won't make Ohio a safer state.

Repository editorial: Proposal would hide concealed-carry lists

Editorial from The Canton Repository Ohio’s concealed-carry law took effect in 2004. Today, nearly 1 in 20 Ohioans older than 21 hold a permit that allows them to conceal a firearm on their person. To be clear, a concealed-carry permit is not a requirement to own or possess a weapon. The law is in place to allow those who desire to do so the right to exercise a measure of protection while outside of their home.

Permits, however, are not issued to just anyone and for good reason. Ohio law, as it currently stands, wisely requires applicants to undergo a background check and at least eight hours of training on how to safely handle a firearm and ammunition, including two hours practice on a firing range.

County sheriffs departments are responsible for conducting background checks, making sure each applicant received proper training from a certified instructor and then issuing the permit.

What happens, though, if they fail to screen applicants properly? Or if permit holders abuse their responsibility under the concealed-carry law?

Journalists from across the country have for years exposed flawed oversight of similar programs in other states, like a 2000 report by The Los Angeles Times that found the state of Texas had been issuing concealed carry permits to hundreds of residents with questionable backgrounds, including a man who killed two and seriously injured another in a shootout over drugs. Then there’s a 2006 report by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, which revealed that the Sunshine State had issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no contest to felonies and 126 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder.

Countless other examples across the country highlight the need for transparency when it comes to issuing concealed-carry handgun permits. But a provision in the Ohio Senate’s $71.3 billion, two-year budget proposal would make that task nearly impossible for reporters in Ohio.

Since Ohio started its concealed-carry program in 2004, the records of permit holders have been kept private with the exception of journalists. In 2007, lawmakers barred journalists from making copies of records or even taking notes. They can only view the records. Now there’s a renewed push to keep this information hidden from everyone.

For journalists, access to such records is critical to holding accountable county sheriff’s departments that oversee concealed-carry programs. If these agencies are going to operate such a program, they should not be allowed to keep secret lists of permit holders or those who’ve had their permits revoked. Nor should they be free from the scrutiny that arises when they issue, revoke or deny permits in error.

It’s now also imperative for journalists to track how the state’s ever-changing concealed-carry rules — like one provision that allows permit holders to carry guns in bars — are working.

Citizen lawsuit alleges Cincinnati mayor, city manager withholding records

From The Cincinnati Enquirer

A man billing himself as a community advocate is suing Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and City Manager Harry Black, accusing the city officials of withholding public records and intimidation.

The records Derrick Blassingame seeks in the case filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Monday include financial records of the mayor and his staff as well as information related to development projects in Avondale.

He also alleges he was placed on a City Hall security-risk list without justification.

"As always, we are prepared to vigorously defend the City against what we view as a meritless lawsuit," said City Solicitor Paula Boggs Muething. "Because Mr. Blassingame has consistently threatened litigation over the course of our dealings with him over the last several months, we are well prepared for this engagement.

"Also, just as we would with any member of the public, we will continue to respond to his numerous public records requests in a timely, thorough fashion," Boggs Muething added.

In recent months, Blassingame has repeatedly participated in public-speaking sessions before Cincinnati City Council, making his case in that forum. A check of Hamilton County Court records show a pending criminal damaging/endangering charge. Blassingame is accused of throwing a rock through a person's window.

A separate 2012 assault charge was dismissed, the records show.

Vindicator editorial: Plan to expunge records of marijuana lawbreakers should go up in smoke

Editorial from the Vindicator

Even if we were inclined to support the legalization of marijuana in Ohio – we aren’t – a companion initiative that would result in the expungement of criminal records stemming from marijuana convictions is a definite deal-breaker for us. We have long opposed the cleansing of court records because we strongly believe there must be consequences to breaking the law.

In the May Democratic primary for mayor of Struthers, The Vindicator chose not to make an endorsement because both the candidates, Danny Thomas Jr. and Ronald A. Carcelli, had their criminal histories wiped clean.

Thomas, who won the Democratic nomination for mayor by a handful of votes, was convicted in 1987 by a federal judge of illegal use of a communication facility [a telephone] to distribute cocaine. His record was sealed in 1998 by a common pleas judge. Thomas then received a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton, a Democrat who enjoyed strong support in the Mahoning Valley when he ran for election and re-election.

The Democratic nominee, a former councilman, is active in party politics and has worked in local, state and national races.

Carcelli, a member of the Struthers Board of Education, was convicted of a misdemeanor count of having an unlawful interest in a public contract. He was ordered to pay $5,000 restitution to the city and a $1,000 fine. Carcelli was indicted on felony charges of theft in office, bribery and theft related to his job with the city of Struthers. The city’s street foreman received a six-month suspended jail sentence, in addition to having to pay the restitution and fine.

Carcelli’s record was sealed in 2012 by a Mahoning County judge.

The thought of either one of those individuals serving as the mayor of Struthers makes us cringe — as does the wholesale expungement of marijuana-related criminal records.

LEGISLATION IN WORKS

ResponsibleOhio, which has launched a statewide petition drive to place an issue on the November general election ballot to amend the state constitution to make marijuana legal, also is crafting a sentence reform/expungement statute that the Republican controlled General Assembly will be asked to pass.

“This would provide Ohioans who were convicted of marijuana charges the ability to have a clean slate so that they can care for themselves and their families,” ResponsibleOhio says.

The group’s goal is to have the statute presented to the General Assembly after the constitutional amendment is approved by the voters.

It would require sentencing review and provide for expunging marijuana charges and sentences.

The lawmakers can either pass the statute – it would be accompanied by petitions containing 92,000 valid signatures – in its entirety, pass a half or partial measure or pass nothing.

If either of the last two options is chosen by the General Assembly, ResponsibleOhio would by able to go directly to the people by placing the issue on the ballot. An additional 92,000 valid signatures on petitions would be required.

PROPONENTS’ VIEW

The proponents of expungement contend that in Ohio there isn’t an equal application of the anti-marijuana laws.

“In nearly every media market in the state, there is a city which is applying tougher rules to simple marijuana possession than the state at large does,” they say.

That may well be, but the individuals who have been charged and convicted with possession have broken the law, plain and simple. In a city such as Youngstown, which has been held hostage by drug gangbangers, tough law enforcement is absolutely necessary. There’s nothing secret about the law. If you get caught with marijuana, you will be charged.

To expunge such records would be to reward individuals who believe it’s their right to pick and choose the laws they will obey.

That’s not how a country of laws is designed to work.

As for the legalization of marijuana, the fact that 10 investment groups would control the statewide production of the drug should give voters pause. This monopoly would be memorialized in the state constitution.

ResponsibleOhio is making an all-out push for the legalization of marijuana, but the voters of Ohio should think long and hard before saying yes. There are just too many unknowns. - See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/07/plan-to-expunge-records-of-marijuana-law/#sthash.TZaFu7Fs.dpuf

Ohio Senate wants gun permits secret

From The Cincinnati Enquirer Lawmakers want to eliminate the last remaining public access to view records on Ohio's more than 400,000 concealed handgun owners.

A change, proposed by Sen. Joe Uecker, R-Miami Township, would prohibit journalists from reading the names of people who obtain permits to carry concealed guns. The proposal is part of the senate's budget plan, which was formally released Tuesday.

The change would eliminate the already extremely limited access to those records, Ohio Newspaper Association Executive Director Dennis Hetzel said.

"Once government creates records, they should be presumptively open unless there's a good reason for them to be secret," Hetzel said.

Reporters can read the records now only after submitting a signed, written request to a sheriff's office to review the name, county of residence and date of birth on permits. They can only look at the records and not take notes or request a list.

A member of the public cannot even look at the names without a court order.

Uecker has pushed for limited access to gun permit names, saying journalists can obtain an order from a judge to view records. Printing the names of people with concealed handgun permits puts them at risk of burglaries or theft, he added.

"Anytime that happens, that puts people at risk," Uecker said.

Gun advocates say journalists have abused access to concealed handgun licenses by publicizing lists of their names and putting gun owners in danger. A New York newspaper published a map of concealed carry permit holders and their addresses after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.

"There's no public good that comes out of the media accessing that list. So it should be closed," said Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearm Association.

Sheriff's offices are responsible for making sure people with gun permits are following the law, not reporters, he added.

But Hetzel said Ohio's law is already so restrictive that journalists wouldn't be able to publish a list if they wanted to.

"As a practical matter, the Ohio law is so limited that the things that have caused controversy would be all but impossible to do in Ohio," Hetzel said.

Another change in the two-year budget would allow members of the military to carry concealed handgun licenses while on active leave. They would have to carry valid military identification and a certificate of training as well as be at least 18 years old.

Ohioans can serve in the military at 18 years old but cannot obtain a concealed gun permit until they are 21 years old, Irvine said.

"They carry guns overseas, then come home on military leave, and we are disarming them. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever," Irvine said.

Dispatch editorial: Charter-school operators should account for their use of tax dollars

Editorial from The Columbus Dispatch Charter schools use tax dollars to provide public education, thus their spending should be transparent to the public. That’s true whether they’re doing a good job or a lousy one.

This principle has been ignored for the dozen years or so of Ohio’s charter-school history. Weak laws imposed few quality controls or guardrails against financial abuse and conflicts of interest. But the General Assembly at last is on the verge of significant reform of charter-school law, and members who support it should not allow it to be hijacked by the same old self-interested players.

Each of three separate charter-school-reform proposals in the Statehouse calls for sponsors — those who authorize and oversee charter schools — and school-operating companies to disclose at least a modicum of detail about how they spend the tax dollars turned over to them.

Sponsors are entitled to keep up to 3 percent of a charter school’s state grant. Ethically, that money should be spent only on things related to overseeing and helping the sponsor’s schools, but current state law doesn’t restrict its use and doesn’t even require sponsors to report how they spend it. Some have been criticized for using charter-school money for purposes unrelated to their schools.

Proposed legislation would restrict the use of sponsors’ fees and require disclosure. Both requirements are long overdue, but Peggy Young, president of the Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers, argued before lawmakers Wednesday that the reporting requirement shouldn’t apply to higher-rated sponsors.

Young also argued in testimony before a Senate subcommittee that sponsors shouldn’t have to restrict their use of tax dollars to school-related spending, declaring, “It’s not how a sponsor spends its funds, but the outcomes they get.”

But if a school is performing at a high level, it should be happy to show how it is achieving such results. And more fundamentally, any program funded by taxpayers must be open to scrutiny by taxpayers. The concept behind charter schools is to free them from the educational mandates that restrict conventional public schools so that charters can employ innovative approaches to teaching. But this concept does not include shielding charter-school operators from financial accountability.

That’s why charter-reform legislation should require companies paid to operate charter schools to disclose how they spend the tax dollars they’re given. To date, some large companies have been paid millions of tax dollars and made no accounting to the public or, in some cases, even to the charter-school boards that hired them.

Three proposals for reform are in the works: Gov. John Kasich’s budget and separate bills in the House and Senate. The House passed House Bill 2 earlier; it and Senate Bill 148 likely will be merged after discussion in the Senate.

S.B. 148 is the stronger of the two bills, requiring both operators and sponsors to spell out their spending. The Senate bill also would prohibit “sponsor-hopping,” closing a loophole that many badly run schools have used to evade Ohio’s tough school-closure rule.

Lawmakers should end the era of charter-school mediocrity in Ohio by keeping the strongest elements among the three proposals and allowing real school choice to blossom.

The Blade files to keep sexting case open to public

From The Blade A Fulton County Juvenile Court judge today denied a request from two attorneys who sought to close court proceedings involving two juveniles who are charged in a sexting case.

The Blade earlier today had filed an opposition to the attorneys’ motion.

Two attorneys, each representing a different 17-year-old defendant, both students at Archbold High School, filed separately in May to close the hearings, stating that an open trial would harm the juveniles' reputations.

The teens are charged with disseminating matter harmful to juveniles; one of the youths is also charged with voyeurism, a misdemeanor.

In The Blade's filing, attorney Fritz Byers stated that at least one of the defendant's attorneys did not provide particular arguments to compel private hearings other than to say, generally, that the boy will be harmed if the information is public.

“This argument, of course, is nothing more than the basic contention that the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently rejected: juvenile proceedings should be closed because publicizing those proceedings will harm the parties.”

The hearing was heard by Judge Michael Bumb; The Blade was represented by Scott Ciolek.

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/06/03/The-Blade-files-to-keep-sexing-case-open-to-public.html#J2FzlEe7pt5Vwbxi.99

Otterbein decision opens police records across Ohio campuses

By Dennis Hetzel, OCOG President

Memo to Ohio newsrooms: If you have a private college in your area that uses commissioned officers as its police force, start covering them. Put them on your rounds for reporters’ regular stops and calls. You now have the same access to records as you would any other police department.

That’s the result of an Ohio Supreme Court decision last week in favor of some persistent and courageous Otterbein University students, led by former student journalist Anna Schiffbauer, who fought efforts by the campus police to keep records secret.

This was a messy case in one respect because it involved records created by entities that aren’t public bodies.

But the broader issue couldn’t be clearer: Deciding in favor of Otterbein meant the Court would sanction secret arrests, detentions and investigations by officers empowered by government. I can’t think of a more fundamental, basic civil liberty than that.

These officers and the Otterbein University police department have their law enforcement authority granted by the state. These were sworn and commissioned officers, not private security or “rent-a-cops.” The university police also had specific authority to enforce laws off campus in the neighboring Columbus suburb of Westerville. Sworn officers have the authority to arrest and detain anywhere, whether they’re police officers for cities, public universities and, now, private universities.

While we applauded the ruling, I also said we were very disappointed that the court’s vote was 4-3 instead of unanimous.

The reasoning of the minority on the court troubles me greatly. Some of it is simply incorrect. Justice Terrence O’Donnell, writing for the minority, blithely dismissed the concern because “these records are otherwise readily available from a public office that maintains public records, i.e. the Westerville Mayor’s Court.”

What if the department decides not to bring charges? Arrest logs and incident reports – all clearly open records under Ohio law – do not go to the mayor’s court. More serious charges may go to other jurisdictions. Whether some of these records eventually become open in mayor’s court misses the broader point completely.

O’Donnell seemed – at least to me -- to find a way to decide in favor of secrecy. This is the trend we have seen in many Ohio Supreme Court decisions. What’s encouraging is that this is the third good decision in a row from the Court on transparency, so maybe there is a majority now that is embracing the strong presumption built into the law that public records (and meetings) should be open, and the burden is on the government to demonstrate why access should be denied.

Until now, private schools had an advantage over public universities by their ability to keep a lid on any reporting of campus crime. You can’t help but wonder if concern about bad publicity didn’t trump the public’s right to know that might be taught in their political science classes. There was strong opposition by private colleges and private hospitals that also employ sworn officers to bills introduced last year to require such police forces to follow the open records laws. While some of the concerns were understandable, I didn’t hear any issues that couldn’t be resolved while still keeping records open when these departments are exercising their police powers.  

There is less need now for legislation, although the decision only covers private colleges and doesn’t apply to other entities employing sworn officers, so that’s a dispute for another day that probably is more complicated.

Some credit where credit is due: The Ohio Coalition for Open Government, which is an offshoot of our Ohio Newspapers Foundation, donated $1,500 to help defray legal costs in the case. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund contributed $5,000. Attorney Jack Greiner in Cincinnati did outstanding legal work representing the students. OCOG counsel Dave Marburger helped the students frame their initial records request to improve the odds of a courtroom victory. Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office contributed an outstanding “friend-of-the-court” brief supporting the students’ position.

Related links:

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the press article on the Ohio case and a similar battle continuing in Indiana between ESPN and Notre Dame University.
• Columbus Dispatch coverage with links to earlier stories.
• Ohio Supreme Court case page with links to the decision and all other filings in the case.

U.S. top court throws out man's conviction for Facebook threats

From Reuters The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who made threatening Facebook statements toward his estranged wife and others in a ruling that makes it tougher to prosecute people for using menacing language on social media.

The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Anthony Elonis in a case that explored the boundaries of free speech online.

The justices decided Elonis could not be convicted merely on the basis that a reasonable person might consider his comments threatening. The court instead said prosecution would be allowed under the federal law that he was accused of breaking only if Elonis himself intended his words as threats.

Elonis wrote the Facebook posts in 2010, when he was 27, after his wife left him. Written in the form of rap lyrics, he fantasized about killing her, knifing a female FBI agent and shooting schoolchildren. After a court granted his wife a protective order against him, Elonis posted: "Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?"

Continue Reading>>

As Ohio mandates more disclosure from private college police, ESPN appeals for Indiana to do the same

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press While the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision last week that private colleges’ police forces must make their records available to the public upon request, ESPN is appealing an Indiana court's ruling that the sports cable channel was not entitled to obtain police records from the University of Notre Dame.

St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler wrote that a state Public Access Counselor was incorrect in determining that ESPN was entitled to records from Notre Dame’s police department.

“ESPN’s position assumes that the Indiana Legislature has the constitutional authority to require a private person or entity that is not funded to produce its records under [the Access to Public Records Act],” Hostetler wrote. “Such a requirement would certainly give rise to grave concerns about the right to privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

A federal court in Indiana had previously considered the issue of whether private college police officers' actions constituted “state action” under Indiana law in Torres v. University of Notre Dame du Lac in 2012. That case involved alleged violation by Notre Dame campus police officers of a protester’s First Amendment rights. The judge concluded that because the state of Indiana gave Notre Dame the police power, Notre Dame assumed the responsibilities to which other police departments are held.

“The broad grant of power to police officers for private universities leaves little to differentiate them from any other police officer in the state of Indiana,” the judge held in the 2012 case.

ESPN spokeswoman Keri Potts said she could not comment on the ongoing litigation

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said the Indiana ruling made little sense. Continue Reading>>

Enquirer: Judge's decision to seal public records is unconstitutional

From The Cincinnati Enquirer A Warren County judge's decision to seal public records connected to a Mason woman's mysterious death was unconstitutional, The Enquirer says in a lawsuit.

In filings sent Tuesday to the 12th District Court of Appeals, The Enquirer says Common Pleas Judge Donald Oda improperly denied the public's right to see investigatory records related to the March 30 death of Susan Sparks. Oda did not conduct a hearing about the matter and never explained his reasons for sealing the records, the lawsuit says.

The Enquirer is asking the appeals court to force Oda to unseal the records.

The records include search warrants and investigators' reasons for seeking those warrants. Court documents are presumed to be open to the public, the lawsuit says.

State laws that govern the courts, according to the lawsuit, allow a judge to deny access to case documents only if the judge "finds by clear and convincing evidence the presumption of public access is outweighed by a higher interest."

The lawsuit also says Oda did not show that the decision to seal the records was "the least restrictive means for" protecting the investigation. Oda, the lawsuit says, could have redacted some information or sealed only parts of the records.

Continue Reading>>

Rocky River Police Department puts reports online

From The Plain Dealer

You can now access Rocky River Police Department reports online anytime.

Incident and traffic reports are now posted on the city's website within 24 hours, cutting down the previous several-day wait time to get copies of reports at the police department.

"It's all public records, so it just makes sense," police Chief Kelly Stillman said. "As far as efficiency goes, most people have home computers and instead of traipsing down to the police department to get a report, they can just get it with the click of a mouse."

The city paid a one-time $1,200 fee for the Records Online software. There is no maintenance charge, the chief said.

The department announced the reports were online Monday. Reports dating back to April 1 are posted, and records clerks are still working to get more reports online.

"Our goal is to go back as far as we can and get reports updated," Stillman said.

To access police reports, go to www.rrcity.com/police-division and click the links for incident and traffic accident reports at the bottom of the page.

Newspaper sues for trooper's dash-cam video

From The Columbus Dispatch In a case involving the State Highway Patrol, The Cincinnati Enquirer is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to declare that police dash-cam videos are public records.

The newspaper claims that the Ohio Department of Public Safety and Director John Born illegally failed to release video captured by a trooper’s dash camera during a Jan. 22 pursuit of a fleeing suspect on I-71 in Warren and Hamilton counties.

The patrol claimed that a prosecutor asked that the video be withheld and then denied its release on grounds it was exempt as a confidential law enforcement investigation record, the Enquirer states in its lawsuit filed yesterday.

The patrol failed to prove that the dash-cam video squarely meets the standards that allow investigatory records to be withheld as specific law-enforcement work product, says the lawsuit filed by Enqurier lawyer John C. Greiner.

The Enquirer argues that dash-cam videos differ little from 911 calls, in that they are automatically recorded in advance of any criminal investigation, and should be immediately released.

A patrol spokesman said that the video was properly withheld as part of a criminal investigation and that it promptly released the incident report and audio of radio traffic as requested by the newspaper. The patrol does release videos once criminal cases conclude, said Lt. Craig Cvetan.

In another Cincinnati area case involving the patrol last year, an Ohio appeals court ruled for the first time that police dash-cam videos are not public records.

The 12 District appellate judges denied a man’s request for video of a drunken-driving arrest, finding that the videos are confidential law-enforcement investigatory records exempt from release. The ruling was not appealed.

Private college police forces must release records, Supreme Court rules

From The Columbus Dispatch

Police departments at private colleges and universities are required to release their records to the public, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled today in a case involving Otterbein University.

By a 4-3 vote, the court majority found that since private college police forces are a creation of state law and perform an historically government function, they are required to comply with Ohio public records law.

The ruling came in a case filed by a former Otterbein University student journalist after she was unable to obtain police records from the Westerville school, which maintained it was not required to comply because it was a non-public entity.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said that Otterbein police “exercises a public function of government, namely the basic police power of enforcing laws and maintaining the peace ...

“Its officers therefore have the power to search and confiscate property, to detain, search and arrest persons and to carry deadly weapons” as an agency that exists only because it is authorized by state law, the opinion said.

Private campus police forces are therefore a public office for purposes of the public records act and must release incident and arrest reports and other records that also must be released by public police agencies, the court said.

Otterbein spokeswoman Jenny Hill said the school's police force now will turn over records requested by student journalists. "We believe the split decision clearly establishes a new precedent related to private university police departments throughout Ohio," she said.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfefier, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Judith L. French formed the court majority in the ruling.

Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy and William M. O’Neill dissented.

In his dissenting opinion, O’Donnell accused his colleagues or rewriting the law in arguing private universities – not the state – create their police forces and they are not public offices.

The court did not address whether the ruling applies to similar private police forces operated by hospitals and others.

Continue Reading>>

Here’s how bad public records laws are in Massachusetts: They make me want to move back to Ohio

By Allison Manning, Boston.com Want to know why your kid’s principal was fired? Too bad.

Or who’s sitting in jail right now? None of your business.

What about the names of people charged with domestic violence? Nope.

When it comes to public records laws in Massachusetts, there’s a lot you don’t know.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

I spent the last five years as a police reporter in Columbus, Ohio, before moving back home to Boston a few months ago. What I’ve rediscovered about my home state: Our public records laws are abysmal, especially compared to those elsewhere.

There are 19 pages of exemptions alone in the 60-page guide to Massachusetts public records. How does this supposedly progressive state have such backwards open government laws?

Massachusetts has a “culture of secrecy,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of the open-government organization Common Cause Massachusetts. She’s not sure exactly why it exists — maybe the state’s long history makes it more resistant to change.

“It’s unconscionable and unfortunate and can’t be allowed to continue,” she said.

This week, the Boston Globe fought back. The newspaper sued several law enforcement agencies, including the Massachusetts State Police and Boston Police Department, for refusing to hand over mug shot and police incident reports invovling officer arrests. It’s the organization’s fifth public records-related lawsuit since the beginning of last year.

Boston police have already given in on one point. On Wednesday, Commissioner William Evans said the department will begin releasing the names of any officers arrested from now on.

The Globe’s latest suit says that the agencies are wrongly hiding behind the Criminal Offender Record Information Act — known as CORI — when denying public records requests for mug shots and incident reports of officers arrested for drunk driving. They claimed that the records were exempt under CORI.

Meanwhile, the agencies have posted on their blogs and Facebook pages the names of civilians charged with operating under the influence.

The suit also challenges the Department of Corrections’s refusal to release the chronological booking log, even though the agency farms out the list of inmates to a for-profit company that provides a searchable database of inmates.

In Ohio, not only are records public, they’re easy (or at least easier) to get.

In my old job covering crime and breaking news, I could quickly get police incident reports, 911 calls and mug shots, usually for free or 5 cents a page.

State prison inmates are easily searchable. Some counties post a list of jail inmates online, too.

Most Ohio court records are readily available online — and free. Meanwhile, copies at Suffolk Superior Court in Boston cost the public $1 a page, and they can’t be scanned or emailed. And even once the state’s long-awaited $75 million online court system is finally complete, the public won’t have access.

Public officials in Ohio can’t charge for the time it takes to gather records. In Massachusetts, the quoted cost for records often includes an hourly rate for an employee to complete the request. Agencies are allowed to charge a “reasonable” fee, but that can run into the thousands of dollars, preventing the public documents from being released at all.

Bridgewater State University officials recently billed the Brockton Enterprise $60,000 to provide emails sent during a six-week period between university officials discussing a child rape case at a campus daycare center.

Also unavailable in Massachusetts: personnel files, evaluations, resumes, disciplinary records, and promotion, demotion or termination information that could give parents and residents a sense of who’s working in their community.

Even a public school board meeting — broadcast live on cable access television — isn’t a public record here.

In Ohio, all of those records are available.

Sure, it’s not always sunny in Ohio. Organizations play the delay game. While Massachusetts has a 10-day limit, Ohio agencies only need to respond in a “reasonable” time frame.

Additionally, more organizations have started claiming that requests are “overly broad,” especially when it comes to emails.

And some agencies have to be reminded about what records are public. I remember standing outside a judge’s office in a rural Ohio courthouse with my newspaper’s lawyer on the phone, arguing with the judge that he couldn’t withhold the name of a juvenile just because the kid was charged with murder. (That’s another difference from Massachusetts: In Ohio, juvenile cases are open to the public, and files are accessible with a judge’s permission).

There's some hope for us here in Massachusetts. Two state legislators filed a bill that would increase access to public records, though open government advocates say it doesn’t go far enough.

The bill would limit fees for filing public records requests, require government agencies to appoint a specific person to handle the requests, provide electronic versions of public records when possible, and require the agencies to cover attorney fees when a petitioner challenges a denied request in court.

That last part is important. Today that protection isn’t in effect. Even if the Globe wins all of its lawsuits, the newspaper will still lose: Massachusetts is one of just four states that doesn’t pay attorneys’ fees to those who win public records lawsuits.