Jack Greiner on why the Pike County Coroner must release those autopsies

By Jack Greiner

The Columbus Dispatch reports that the Pike County Coroner, David Kessler, has completed the autopsy reports on brutal slayings in Pike County Ohio. And, contrary to Ohio Law, he is refusing to produce copies. He is relying on Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine for support on this illegal action.

It appears that Kessler is citing a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court case – State ex rel Dayton Newspapers v. Rauch – where the Court ruled that autopsy reports are exempt from the Ohio Public Records Act. But in legislation adopted after that 1984 decision, the Ohio Legislature made it clear the Rauch case is no longer controlling. Revised Code 313.10 provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the records of the coroner who has jurisdiction over the case, including, but not limited to, the detailed descriptions of the observations written during the progress of an autopsy and the conclusions drawn from those observations filed in the office of the coroner under division (A) of section 313.13 of the Revised Code, made personally by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's direction or supervision, are public records. (emphasis added)

This statute begs the question -- what part of “ARE PUBLIC RECORDS” do these guys not understand?

The same statute then specifically lists those records that are not public record:

2) Except as otherwise provided in division (D) or (E) of this section, the following records in a coroner's office are not public records:

(a) Preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's direction or supervision;

(b) Photographs of a decedent made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's direction or supervision;

(c) Suicide notes;

(d) Medical and psychiatric records provided to the coroner, a deputy coroner, or a representative of the coroner or a deputy coroner under section 313.091 of the Revised Code;

(e) Records of a deceased individual that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code;

(f) Laboratory reports generated from the analysis of physical evidence by the coroner's laboratory that is discoverable under Criminal Rule 16.

This section begs another question – if the autopsy is exempt in its entirety, why provide specific carve outs, especially for the “preliminary autopsy”? If the autopsy is exempt, then by definition the preliminary autopsy is exempt. Under the interpretation invented by the Coroner and the AG, the statute is utterly meaningless.

And even with those excepted records, the statute provides as follows:

(D) A journalist may submit to the coroner a written request to view preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, suicide notes, or photographs of the decedent made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's discretion or supervision. The request shall include the journalist's name and title and the name and address of the journalist's employer and state that the granting of the request would be in the best interest of the public. If a journalist submits a written request to the coroner to view the records described in this division, the coroner shall grant the journalist's request. The journalist shall not copy the preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, suicide notes, or photographs of the decedent.

But, and this probably comes as no surprise at this point, the coroner won’t let any journalists see the information which the Ohio Revised Code absolutely requires them to provide for inspection.

We hear our elected officials talk a lot about respect for the rule of law. It would probably sound more sincere if they showed a little respect for it themselves.

Auditor decides not to investigate Huber Heights records complaint

From The Dayton Daily News

Ohio Auditor Dave Yost’s office will not investigate a public records dispute within Huber Heights city government.

A letter from the auditor’s office to Huber Heights Law Director Alan Schaeffer notes the agency believes the issues are “resolved at this time” and considers “the matter closed.”

Councilmen Richard Shaw and Glenn Otto were accused last month by Councilman Ed Lyons of improperly removing public records from city facilities. Lyons shepherded through council a motion to ask Yost to investigate the incident.

An email obtained by the Dayton Daily News shows Otto became upset with Schaeffer on Saturday, noting he did not receive the auditor’s decision — issued last Wednesday — “immediately” from Schaeffer.

“I am personally aware of this as I took the initiative to obtain the information myself through a public records request,” Otto wrote in his email. “In light of this, I still have concerns that your legal representation does not include the whole of Huber Heights City Council as it should.”

On Monday, Schaeffer narrowly survived a vote to terminate his contract. In a surprise move, Otto motioned to vote on whether to terminate Schaeffer’s contract.

The measure to oust Schaeffer failed 3-4. Council members Tyler Starline, Shaw and Otto voted to terminate Schaeffer’s contract. Lyons recused himself from the vote, but would not elaborate why.

“It’s unfortunate that there wasn’t enough evidence to compel the state auditor’s office to investigate,” Lyons said after the auditor’s decision. “However, there is still a real liability to the city based on the public records laws that have been broken.”

Shaw and Otto have long said the documents they removed – including four boxes worth – were copies and that no laws were broken. Nor, they said, were they involved in one page of minutes from a 2008 meeting disappearing.

Schaeffer did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

The relationship between Schaeffer, Otto and Shaw was rocky even before the members were elected last year. In October 2015, Schaeffer found Shaw and Otto in violation of a city ordinance by using the city’s logo on their campaign websites.

Schaeffer is an attorney with Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling law firm. In addition to Huber Heights, Schaeffer is counsel to the city of Springboro. He earned his law degree from the Ohio State University in 1973 and passed the state bar in 1974.

Coroner, attorney general refuse to release final autopsies in Pike County killings

From The Columbus Dispatch Pike County authorities and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine refused Tuesday to release the final autopsy reports of eight Rhoden family members who were shot to death in April, something which public-records experts say is a mistake.

Pike County Coroner Dr. David Kessler first denied The Dispatch access Friday night and again on Monday, and then wrote in an email Tuesday that he considers the autopsy reports "confidential law enforcement investigatory records." He wrote that their release "might impede the criminal investigation or the families' grieving process."

The coroner offered no case law that gave him the authority to withhold the records, but DeWine's office later cited a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that autopsy reports in a homicide investigation are confidential. The office also cited a section of the Ohio Revised Code that references a coroner's exemption for records that are considered confidential as part of a law enforcement investigation.

"We believe the law says they do not have to be released," DeWine said. He said case law protects such reports for a reason.

Their release, he said, "would damage our ability to solve this case. Our ability to judge the veracity of information coming in, our ability to judge the credibility of information coming in, all goes away once that is public."

Dispatch Editor Alan D. Miller disagrees.

"While we respect what the authorities are saying about the investigation, we see no evidence that this would be disruptive to their investigation, which at this point seems to be going nowhere. Nor have we seen examples of the release of such information affecting similar cases in the past," Miller said.

"Is it conceivable that great public knowledge could help them solve the case? That's possible."

Miller said this case — and the papers request for the records — is not about the media. It's about public access to information.

"We have great respect for the authorities and the work they're doing to try and solve this case. We also believe the law says these records are public, and the attorney general and Pike County authorities don't get to choose what laws they follow."

The attorney general's own handbook on Ohio's public-record laws says that the section of state code that governs a coroner's records now supersedes that 1984 ruling.

Continue Reading>>

Blade seeks release of court documents in Sierah Joughin case

From The Blade The Blade today filed a motion to vacate an order issued denying public access to search warrants related to the investigation of Sierah Joughin's death.

Fulton County Common Pleas Judge James Barber on Tuesday denied public access to all search warrants, affidavits, and search warrant returns related to the investigation in response to a motion by Fulton County Prosecutor Scott Haselman.

The Blade’s motion was filed in Fulton County Common Pleas Court and states in part: ”The grounds for this motion are that, in absence of case-specific and evidence-based findings that support a sealing order, the movant has a right under the United States and Ohio Constitutions, Ohio’s public records law, and the common law be given access to some or all of these materials.”

A hearing has been scheduled for 2 p.m. Thursday.

Ms. Joughin, 20, of Metamora, disappeared July 19 on a bike ride in rural Fulton County.

James D. Worley, 57, was arrested early Friday morning on an abduction charge and was later charged with aggravated murder. Local, state, and federal investigators have been searching his 3-acre property on County Road 6 for several days.

Officials said they discovered Ms. Joughin's remains Friday evening along County Road 7. Her identity was confirmed Tuesday after an autopsy.

Worley remains lodged at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio. He will be in court again today.

Springfield Schools must release student data as public records

From Court News Ohio Springfield City Schools must release student contact information requested by School Choice, a private non-profit organization whose mission is to inform students and parents about educational options, as long as parents have consented to making the information available, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

Neither federal nor state law restricts release of Springfield student “directory information” for the 2013-2014 school year, the Court ruled.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger ruled that Springfield must provide School Choice the records that fall within any of the nine categories of student information listed in the school district’s consent form for those students whose parents had signed the form.

Information Requested by School Choice During the 2012-2013 school year School Choice made a public records request to Springfield for student and parent names, parent addresses and email addresses, parent telephone numbers, and student grade levels. Springfield provided only student names and addresses, stating that the remaining data was not directory information subject to release.

For the next school year Springfield changed its policy on releasing student information. While designating the same nine categories for release, the district no longer called the information “directory information” and limited its release to certain approved purposes.

Springfield provided a form for parents to give written request to release “personally identifiable information” to apply continuously until a parent withdrew consent. The form approved release of the information for school-related events and for “educational, health, service or other non-profit programs which may provide a benefit to the students of the district” directed by “community leaders, community organizations, and school-related organizations” approved as “partnering organizations” by the superintendent.

Records Request Rejected Under New Policy In October 2013, School Choice filed a nearly identical public records request with Springfield as it did the year before. The request was eventually denied. But the district had released personally identifiable student information during that school year to several organizations, including Clark State Community College, Springfield Christian Youth Ministries, and the Clark County Combined Health District.

In May 2014, School Choice sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court compelling Springfield to release requested student directory information for the 2013-2014 school year and to amend its student data policy.

Federal Law Does Not Prohibit Release of Student Data The Court stated that student data maintained by Springfield are public records unless they fall under one of the exemptions in Ohio’s public records act, R.C. 149.43. The school district claimed that students’ personally identifiable information are “records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law” under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). The district asserted that both the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and R.C. 3319.321, the state privacy act, prohibit the release of the student information.

Justice Lanzinger noted while FERPA broadly prohibits the release of education records, an exception in the statute allows a school district to adopt a policy to release “directory information” without prior parental consent. Directory information covers several categories, including the nine maintained by Springfield, and Springfield is unable to exempt it by changing the name. Student information can be released if the district announces the types of data it wants to release, gives notice of the information intended to be released without prior parental consent, and gives parents the right to opt out of the process.

FERPA Allows Parental Notice to Guide Release of Student Data Although FERPA designates what information can be released without parental consent, Justice Lanzinger explained the federal law is “silent regarding the parties who are eligible to receive the information.” A federal regulation, 34. CFR 99.1, permits a school to specify in its public notice to parents that disclosure of directory information will be limited to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both. When a school does make such limitations in its public notice, disclosure outside those categories would violate federal law.

The Court concluded that School Choice, a nonprofit organization which informs Ohio parents of educational opportunities, fits within the limited category of Springfield’s consent form for educational, health, service, or other non-profit programs that may provide a benefit to the district’s students. As a result, “FERPA would not prohibit Springfield’s release of student-directory information to School Choice,” Justice Lanzinger wrote.

Springfield argued that if its superintendent did not want to partner with a group or approve a particular purpose, disclosure in that case would violate FERPA. The Court disagreed, ruling that if the parental consent form identifies a category of purposes or parties who may receive student information, it does not violate FERPA to release it for any request fitting in that category.

“Because School Choice fits within limitations specified in Springfield’s consent form and because the superintendent cannot create FERPA prohibitions by making post-consent discretionary decisions, disclosure of Springfield’s student directory information to School Choice would not be prohibited by FERPA,” Justice Lanzinger wrote.

State Law Does Not Block Release Springfield also argued that the release to School Choice is prohibited by R.C. 3319.321, the state student privacy act. Justice Lanzinger explained the law was adopted to bring Ohio into compliance with FERPA, and impliedly adopts the federal law’s directory-information provisions. The Court concluded that state law did not prohibit release, and therefore School Choice was entitled to obtain the information as a public record.

Release to Other Groups Not a Factor School Choice had argued it was entitled to the records even if the public records law did not apply because the district gave the information to other organizations. Under R.C. 3319.321(B)(2)(a), any restriction a school places on release of directory information to “representatives of the armed forces, business, industry, charitable institutions, other employers, and institutions of higher education” must be uniformly imposed on all of the groups.

Justice Lanzinger explained that this statute applies to entities seeking to employ students and to higher education institutions rather than to every nonprofit seeking the information. School Choice promotes kindergarten through twelfth-grade education and does not fit into the category governed by the state law.

Since School Choice qualified to receive the information as a public record, the Court declined the nonprofit’s request that Springfield change its directory-information policy. In granting the writ of mandamus in part, the Court also awarded School Choice $1,000 in damages, plus its court costs and attorney fees.

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Sharon L. Kennedy, and William M. O’Neill joined Justice Lanzinger’s majority opinion.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor concurred in part and dissented in part, indicating she would not award attorney fees.

Concurring Justice Found Superintendent Abused Discretion In a concurring opinion, Justice Terrence O’Donnell concluded that the superintendent abused his discretion in denying School Choice the records.

He wrote the superintendent had no rational basis for treating School Choice differently from other organizations that received the student information and when the superintendent did release the data to other groups, the district waived its right to claim an exemption from the public records act.

Justice Judith L. French concurred in Justice O’Donnell’s opinion.

Federal court rules against media in mugshot case

By Dennis Hetzel, OCOG President

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has left only a tiny crack in the door to obtain booking photographs of people accused of federal crimes.

In a 9-7 decision, the court upheld rulings in other federal courts that the U.S. Marshals Service has correctly interpreted the Freedom of Information Act by saying that the FOIA’s restrictions on release if the subject has a strong privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to see the booking photos.

The Sixth Circuit, which covers Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan, was the last federal court circuit in which these photos could be obtained. The Detroit Free Press led a media coalition to retain that right after the marshals refused to release mugshots of indicted police officers.

Our Ohio Coalition for Open Government was one of the groups filing briefs in the case, with financial support from open government groups in Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky as well as the Ohio Association of Broadcasters.

OCOG attorney Dave Marburger shared this in an email:

“The only good news was that the court decided to adopt a case-by-case approach in evaluating whether the federal government has the authority to withhold booking photos from public view – as opposed to ruling that booking photos are categorically outside the public right of access under FOIA.

“You might recall that our amicus brief urged the Court not to adopt the government's argument that booking photos are categorically private, although the Court's opinion doesn't mention us in declining to rule that booking photos are always (categorically) outside the public's right of access.”

Note that this only affects federal cases, not state ones, although the decision gives aid and comfort to those who would ban access to these photos in state courts. Also, since the marshals are likely to always say “no” when asked for photos, your only recourse will be a lengthy FOIA process and eventual litigation. As a practical matter, the court has slammed the door shut.

What is most striking to me in the decision is how much the justices were swayed by the influence of the Internet and social media, which was not a factor when the FOIA was created of course. Consider this quote from the ruling: “In 1996, this court could not have known or expected that a booking photo could haunt the depicted individual for decades.”

The justices specifically mentioned the “mugshot sites” that charge those arrested to have their photos removed and the reality that these photos do not “go away” as they did years ago when they showed up one day in the newspaper or for a fleeting moment on a TV newscast.

As we all know, the Internet continues to change everything it touches. For those of us who believe in open government and responsible journalism, we will have to be increasingly nimble to resist these arguments.  On the legislative front, we’ll continue to be faced with legislators and voters who want to “do something” about bad online actors, the viciousness of many anonymous commenters and the pervasiveness of the Web.

To read the full decision, click here.

Bill: Body camera footage public with limits

From The Cincinnati Enquirer A Republican lawmaker wants most body-worn camera footage to be open to the public with a few privacy exceptions.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miamisburg, would require police to release camera footage taken on public property upon request unless it showed a child, victim of sexual assault or personal information like a Social Security number. The video could be released with those people or information edited out.

That means footage, like that taken of a former University of Cincinnati officer fatally shooting Sam DuBose last year, would be available for review even if a suspect is not charged or convicted of a crime, Antani said.

Footage shot in private homes and the private portions of businesses, like back rooms and storage facilities, would be released to the public only if a suspect was convicted or pleaded guilty.

Antani's goal was to protect the privacy of residents in their own homes while satisfying public records advocates seeking transparency in police interactions. The proposal would let counties decide how long video must be stored, but it must be kept for at least one year.

Whether body cameras and dashboard cameras qualify as public records is the subject of an Enquirer lawsuit before the Ohio Supreme Court, which heard arguments last month. Justices debated whether footage is a public record, much like a 911 call or incident report, and should be released to the public promptly or whether it's more like an interview with a suspect, part of the ongoing criminal investigation.

Ohio needs a uniform public records policy on body camera footage that protects the privacy of the public and police, said Mike Weinman, director of government affairs for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.

"It gets confusing when you have different agencies having different policies," Weinman said.

And Ohio Newspaper Association executive director Dennis Hetzel agrees, and he's happy Antani would keep these records open except in certain, limited circumstances.

"The big issue is let’s retain the presumption of openness that should attach to every public record," Hetzel said.

House lawmakers have very few sessions planned until after the November election, so Antani's bill wouldn't see action until the lame-duck session.

In the battle over public notices, Hispanics and minorities stand to lose most

By Stacy M. Brown, National Association of Hispanic Publications It hasn’t been the best of times in the print newspaper industry – if you’re so-called mainstream or legacy media.

Plunging circulations and the Internet have played a major role in the decline of advertising revenue at such noted publications as USA Today, Washington Post and the New York Daily News.

What’s more, a consistent source of necessary revenue is now in peril.

Legal and public notices placed by government agencies have served as income generators since the advent of newspapers, but large federal entities like the Department of Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments in places like Illinois, Arizona and small Maryland counties want to stop putting the notices in newspapers, instead places them on agency-controlled web pages.

“We at SPJ have kept an eye on the phenomenon and we have opposed those efforts because with a locality placing a notice on its own site, you have a fox guarding the hen house,” said Paul Fletcher, publisher and editor-in-chief at Virginia Lawyers Weekly and president of the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization that’s dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior.

While newspapers who carry a household name like the Los Angeles Times or Washington Post might be losing circulation and government agencies may argue they are losing their reach, the biggest losers in the battle to keep public notices could be newspapers whose circulations are actually growing and whose influence is greatest of all.

“We’ve come to expect big declines every time circulation numbers for newspapers are released. So, it’s a shock to see one area where they are growing: Hispanic weekly newspapers,” authors of a recent Pew Research Center study said.

The 2015 study revealed that circulation grew by 4 percent for the Spanish-language newspapers examined by PEW. Further, Media Life Magazine noted that a number of Hispanic newspapers, including Impacto USA in Los Angeles, La Voz in Houston and the Orlando El Sentinel, have circulation of at least 120,000 per week.

It is these newspapers, in general, who have been able to reach countless Hispanic residents with legal and public notices even as many municipalities overlook minority-owned publications when placing notices, Media Life noted.

“This trend reflects the great appetite for reliable, local news among Hispanics in markets across the country, both big and small,” the study authors said.

Importantly, officials at Echo Media, the industry leader in direct response advertising, noted that major brands have jumped in to start advertising to the growing Hispanic market segment.

This brand-loyal audience not only controls a large dollar volume of revenue; it also represents an actively expanding market.

By appealing to the Hispanic community through newspapers that speak specifically to their needs, and in their language, advertisers build a bridge of trust and brand awareness that cannot be duplicated through English language channels, Echo Media bosses said.

The National Association of Hispanic Publications have reported that the circulation of audited Hispanic newspapers and magazines more than tripled from 2005 through 2013, and Hispanic publications have garnered more than $1 billion each year in advertising over the past decade, according to a 2015 report issued by Net News Check.

A companion Pew Research study concluded that the Hispanic population consumes local and neighborhood news at a higher rate than the overall population.

“Independent newspapers provide a watchdog function in this instance,” Fletcher, the SPJ president, said.

“And the fact that the notice is printed on paper is important – the notice is an unchangeable record that can be relied upon by officials and even courts if needed. If a notice is online, it can easily be changed with a few clicks of a mouse. And there are concerns and problems with archiving such notices that don’t exist when it’s printed,” he said.

Public notices are announcements from all levels and branches of government, from businesses and from individuals. They inform about government actions, environmental conditions and economic changes, according to mypublicnotices.com.

Public notices alert the community when the interests of family, neighborhood or businesses are affected by what others do and they invite residents to participate in the democratic process and in business opportunities.

Among the notices typically placed in newspapers are when a local restaurant applies for a liquor license; when government agencies are buying products made by local companies; a proposed tax increase on the school board’s agenda; assets are being distributed; the sewer authority issuing bonds; a neighbor applies for a permit to expand their home; the state treasurer holds unclaimed tax refunds; or a business or residential property is for sale.

Recently, however, legislators in several states have been reconsidering the laws that specify newspapers as the only appropriate way to disseminate this information.

Earlier this year, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2447, which allows for the creation of an online database for business notices, a move opposed by the state’s newspaper association.

In Michigan, House Bill 4183 would require that public notices be published solely online, changing the legally required practice of townships, villages, cities and counties paying to publish some notices in print newspapers serving their residents. Online-only publication now would allow TV and radio stations to compete for contracts.

In Maryland, Montgomery County and state lawmakers claim publishing public notices in newspapers is an ineffective, costly and obsolete process, and so they’re pursuing state legislation to end the requirement, according to published reports. Other states considering changes to their public notice laws include Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois.

City of Rockville spokesperson Marylou Berg said the city spends about $20,000 annually on the notices. Montgomery County Finance Director Joseph Beach said the county has spent about $7,500 on legal notices in fiscal year 2016, which began last July.

The county paid the two newspapers $14,000 in fiscal year 2015 to publish the notices.

“The proposed rule would modernize public notice requirements to allow permitting agencies to provide public notice of a pending permit action electronically instead of in a newspaper,” EPA Spokesman Ernesta Jones said.

“We call this e-notice. The rule also proposes that for EPA-issued permits, the public notification would shift from newspaper-based to e-notice and the proposed rule does not change any requirements that dictate the type of actions that require public notice, and when the notice must be provided. It also does not change other public participation requirements,” Jones said.

To reduce potential confusion about where the public should check for permit notices, the proposed rule would require state permitting agencies to use a consistent method of providing public notice, he said, noting that, as an example, if a state permitting agency decides to use e-notice by posting any of its permitting public notices on a website instead of in a newspaper, it would have to post all of its permitting public notices on that website.

“State permitting agencies would be free to continue providing public notices in the newspaper if they choose to do so – as long as they keep the notice method consistent,” Jones said. “Many permitting agencies already provide multiple forms of public notice, which EPA encourages,” he said.

However, on the federal level, some lawmakers said they will continue to support newspapers in their overall battle to secure advertising – even public notice placements – from government agencies.

“It is important that news outlets and media companies owned or published by people of color with a primary mission to serve communities of color have the same opportunities as other media outlets—especially as African Americans and Hispanic Americans continue to grow in number in our country,” said Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), reiterating her stand that advertising in newspapers is essential for the millions of readers in minority communities.

“Virginians expect the activities of government to be conducted openly, fairly and transparently,” said Delegate Riley E. Ingram (R-Hopewell). “Newspapers, both daily and weekly, continue to have a prominent role in the maintenance of these principles throughout Virginia's communities.” Ingram said.

Also, many argue that the notices not only hurt newspapers but also a number of minorities who may not have proper access.

“Only about 50 percent of American Latinos have home broadband access. That number drops below 40 percent for Spanish-dominant Latinos,” said Jessica J. González, the executive vice president and general counsel for the National Hispanic Media Coalition, a Pasadena, California-based media advocacy and civil rights organization.

“The National Hispanic Media Coalition has been working to bridge the digital divide because we understand that our community is missing out on important opportunities, such as the EPA notices and others having to do with healthcare, education, employment, and the list goes on,” González said.

“It is a national imperative that the United States connect 100 percent of American families to broadband before it moves to issuing important public notices in online only formats. Until then, government agencies must, in addition to internet notices, use newspaper, radio and other widely-available resources to disseminate important public service announcements,” she said.

Ultimately, the SPJ has viewed this as an issue of the public’s right to know and, if a notice is in a newspaper, it is easy to locate and likely widely circulated, Fletcher said.

If the notice is on a website, the person seeking the information must go find it, if he or she has a computer. Older and less wealthy citizens may not have the equipment to access those sites – for them, the online notices are a failure, and they may relate to matters of great public importance, he said, adding that there might be a significant zoning change to be discussed at a public hearing, or a discussion of how public tax dollars will be spent.

“The bottom line is that we believe that placing notices in independent newspapers is the best way to achieve the purpose of a public notice,” Fletcher said.

“To give citizens a heads-up that a government is about to take some action that will impact them and to provide the opportunity to have public input on governmental decisions.”

Information lacking on juvenile justice in Ohio, report says

From The Columbus Dispatch Fewer than half of Ohio's county juvenile courts provided a public report on the number and type of cases they handle, despite a state law requiring it, according to a nonprofit advocacy group.

The Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio contacted the juvenile courts in all 88 counties last year and found that fewer than half had a publicly available report on their cases.

State law requires each juvenile court to prepare such a report annually and file it no later than June with its board of county commissioners.

The Juvenile Justice Coalition's report calls the lack of data "disturbing" and renews the group's recommendation for Ohio to implement a comprehensive, statewide juvenile-justice data collection system.

"We're spending millions of dollars — we don't even know how many million — on juvenile justice without knowing if we're getting what we're paying for," said Erin Davies, the coalition's executive director.

In central Ohio, Franklin, Fairfield, Madison and Pickaway counties told a representative of the organization late last year that they had no report, she said.

Delaware, Licking and Union counties all had reports that were available online. They were among 42 counties that provided reports to the coalition.

Officials with the Franklin County Juvenile Court, which is known for relying heavily on data to shape its policies and programming, said they have a one-page annual report that complies with state law, but weren't sure why it wasn't made available to the nonprofit group.

"We are really engaged in data collection and a real leader in the type of analysis we do," said Bev Seffrin, deputy director of performance evaluation for the court.

As one of eight Ohio counties that belong to the national Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, funded by the nonprofit Annie E. Casey Foundation, the court has a four-person staff devoted to data collection and analysis.

Davies agreed that the Franklin County Juvenile Court has a reputation for being "at the forefront of innovative practices" when it comes to basing its decisions on data analysis. "They could be a model for other counties."

But, she added, "it needs to be publicly available."

Continue Reading>>

Media coalition celebrates President Obama signing of FOIA reforms into law as FOIA turns 50 on July 4

From the NAA President Barack Obama's signature on the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 marks a high point in the half century history of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

"We are pleased to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the original Freedom of Information Act with a stronger FOIA," said Rick Blum, director of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a coalition of media associations that has strongly supported efforts by Congress to make federal agencies implement FOIA as Congress intended a half century ago. "We thank President Obama for signing the legislation into law."

"FOIA is the most effective oversight tool available to the public, including journalists. Over the last 50 years, FOIA has helped improve public safety, save taxpayer dollars, and expose malfeasance or just plain bad decisions. Strengthening FOIA and limiting the government's ability to abuse or plain ignore it is a fitting birthday present to the American people as we celebrate the Fourth of July and FOIA's 50th birthday."

The new law ends the ability of agencies to withhold deliberations otherwise not protected under FOIA after 25 years, writes clearly into law the presumption of disclosure, strengthens the FOIA Ombudsman so the office can assert itself with the independence that Congress intended, makes FOIA more public-friendly by creating a single FOIA portal for agencies to receive requests and build additional public-friendly tools, and requires agencies to report on their FOIA track record each year in time for Sunshine Week.

Today's signing could not have been possible without the bipartisan efforts of many in the U.S. House and Senate. We would like to especially thank House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Ut.) and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), as well as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), who chaired the committee in the 113th Congress and introduced the original House bill (H.R. 653). In the Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Ia.), Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.) worked for several years on bipartisan, bicameral efforts to help make our government more transparent and accountable to the public. About the Sunshine in Government Initiative SGI members have worked together for a decade to speak with a united voice to strengthen open government policies and practices. Members of the Sunshine in Government Initiative include: American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Online News Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists.

For more information, visit sunshineingovernment.org, or on Twitter @sunshineingov or #FixFOIAby50

##

What SGI Members have said about the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016

Newspaper Association of America 'NAA celebrates FOIA reforms becoming law just days before FOIA turns 50 on July 4. President Obama's signature culminates years of work by NAA and its SGI partners and shows bipartisanship works to strengthen the ability of the public, through the media, to obtain information from government." – NAA Chief Executive Officer David Chavern

Online News Association "ONA is thrilled to see Congress and the President come together to strengthen the public's access to information through these improvements to FOIA. While there is more that can and should be done, we applaud this progress in FOIA's fiftieth year." – ONA President Josh Hatch

Radio Television Digital News Association "We are pleased to see many of the important reforms we have fought for become law today. It marks an important step forward in the right of Americans to have access to information about how the government is working on their behalf." – RTDNA Executive Director Mike Cavender

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press "Beginning today, journalists have a stronger starting point when using FOIA to fulfill their watchdog role in our society." – RCFP Executive Director Bruce Brown

Society of Professional Journalists "SPJ and more than 50 other journalism and open government organizations have been pushing for a more open and transparent government for quite some time. This is important for not only journalists, but the public as well. An open government is a healthy and robust government. When government leaders and agencies are allowed to keep information secret and hidden, journalists and citizens alike are kept in the dark and the foundations of American democracy fail." – SPJ President Paul Fletcher

Background Signing S. 337 into law culminates years of hard work. FOIA reform bills in the House (H.R. 653) and Senate (S. 337) were both introduced on February 2, 2015. They are almost identical to each other and to bills approved by the full House and full Senate in the previous (113th) Congress. The House bill, H.R. 653, was introduced by Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) and co-sponsors Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. H.R. 653 passed the full House on January 11, 2016 by unanimous consent.

The Senate bill, S. 337, was introduced on February 2, 2015 by Senators John Cornyn (R-Tx.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) and co-sponsored by 2 additional senators. One week later, on February 9, 2015, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure by unanimous consent. S. 337 passed the full Senate on March 15, 2016. It was approved by the House of Representatives on June 13, 2016.

Highlights in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 takes many steps to strengthen FOIA. Specifically, S. 337:

• Strengthens the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) by clarifying the Office must speak with an independent voice. Currently OGIS must seek input from other agencies and the Office of Management and Budget before making its recommendations for improving FOIA available to the public. This limits what OGIS can say.
• Ensures future administrations start from a presumption of openness. That means agencies may withhold information only if they reasonably foresee that disclosure would cause specific, identifiable harm from one of the nine types of interests already protected by FOIA (such as personal privacy, national security and trade secrets). Agencies have used this same standard since 2009.
• Pushes agencies to modernize technology in responding to FOIA requests by creating a single FOIA portal to accept FOIA requests for any agency.
• Requires agencies to submit annual FOIA processing statistics a month earlier each year so they are available for Sunshine Week.;
• Limits the ability of agencies to keep internal deliberations confidential to a period of 25 years. Agencies would lose the ability to cite Exemption 5 (protecting internal deliberations) in denying requests if the information is more than 25 years old.

Faber applauds signing of legislation to make public records process in Ohio more accessible to public

From a press released by Senate President Keith Faber Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) today announced the signing of legislation designed to make it easier for Ohioans to navigate the public records request process.

Last month the Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 321, which provides an expedited process to an individual who has had a public records request denied by a public office at the state, county and local levels.

"This legislation knocks down the financial and legal barriers that ordinary Ohioans face when trying to access public records," said Faber. "By making the public records process easier to navigate, we're acting to improve public confidence in the transparency of our government."

Senate Bill 321, sponsored by Faber, will establish procedures for filing a dispute if a person’s public records request is denied. For only $25, an individual can file a complaint with the Court of Claims that will begin with a mediation process designed to resolve the dispute over access to the requested public records.

If mediation fails, a Special Master at the Court of Claims will make a expedited recommendation for the Court to consider before issuing a binding decision.

Senate Bill 321 received strong support from Auditor Dave Yost, Attorney General Mike DeWine and the Ohio Newspaper Association.

To watch an interview with President Faber about Senate Bill 321, click here.

How an Ohio judge’s ruling threatens journalists’ ability to cover the court system

From The Columbia Journalism Review An attorney has a civil case that’s about to go to trial. He contacts a friend of his, the editor of a local publication, to encourage coverage of the case. The attorney shares public court records and information about the court schedule. The case is newsworthy, and on the eve of trial the editor’s publication runs a story that outlines the claims of the attorney’s clients.

And for this … the attorney deserves to be sanctioned for frivolous conduct?

That’s how one Ohio judge sees it, although plenty of people, it should go without saying, disagree. An appeal is underway, and a coalition of civil liberties and media groups, including the Ohio Newspaper Association, the Ohio Association of Broadcasters, and the Ohio Coalition for Open Government, has filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge used the wrong standard to impose the sanctions. The First Amendment Lawyers Association has filed a separate brief arguing that the sanctions were unconstitutional. And—full disclosure that I’m hardly a neutral commentator here—I’m the lead author of a third brief, for the ACLU of Ohio, arguing that the sanctions could restrict the rights of attorneys to communicate with the press.

Those arguments are now before the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, which is reviewing the trial judge’s ruling. The case grows out of a lawsuit against the Chagrin Falls-based English Nanny & Governess School, which trains nannies and places them with clients. Attorney Peter Pattakos, of the Chandra Law Firm in Cleveland, initiated the suit on behalf of a former student and a former employee of the school. The student, a nanny in training, alleged that the school covered up a report she made about a client sexually abusing his own daughter. The employee alleged that she was fired because she refused to help discredit the student.

Continue Reading>>

Reynoldsburg school board emails may violate law

From The Columbus Dispatch Government bodies might be breaking Ohio’s open-meetings laws if they deliberate via email, out of view of the public.

Before the issue was clarified in early May by the Ohio Supreme Court, some members of the Reynoldsburg Board of Education deliberated at length using email. A few times, they even discussed how they would vote on major issues.

“I think in hindsight, with the Supreme Court saying specifically that email communication is not exempt, we could’ve used better judgment,” board President Joe Begeny said Thursday. “We’ve been more judicious” about using email since the ruling, he said.

Between March and May, Begeny, Vice President Rob Truex, member Debbie Dunlap and, sometimes, member Neal Whitman emailed each other dozens of times about how long to extend a new contract with a charter school, how to deal with a janitorial contractor that they say was doing a poor job and what to do about potential overcrowding at a high school campus.

On April 11, Dunlap sent Truex, Begeny and Whitman a 1,000-word message about why she favored renewing a contract with Virtual Community Schools. In it, she quoted what she told a constituent: “ It is my plan to vote for the renewal for the (Virtual Community Schools) contract on Monday evening, which I know may cause some contention ...”

Truex responded, “If the contract stays as is — I will be voting ‘no’ — which is unfortunate."

When asked for comment, Truex said in an email: “As a new Board member (and having never served in public), this is all new to me and I’m learning the rules by drinking from the fire-hose. ... We will of course make every effort to adhere to this and other rulings.”

Whitman appeared careful to email no more than one member at a time, avoiding a majority and sticking to fact-finding.

In late April, most of the board and some administrators grappled with the overwhelming number of freshman applications for the Summit Road high school campus, leaving it 200 students over capacity next year, while the Livingston Avenue campus would be underused. The board had convened public meetings in which it asked the community whether it would prefer modular classrooms at Summit, moving specialized programs from one campus to another or making one campus with freshmen and sophomores and the other with juniors and seniors.

Continue Reading>>

House passes FOIA reforms; bill sent to President for signature

From The NAA For more than two years, NAA and its media and journalism partners in the Sunshine in Government Initiative (SGI) have been working with a bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators to enact meaningful reforms to strengthen the operation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) before the original law turns 50 years old on July 4, 2016.

On June 13, the House of Representatives unanimously approved the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (S. 337), which was passed by the Senate in mid-March. The legislation requires federal agencies to presumptively disclose information in response to a FOIA request unless Congress has recognized an interest that justifies withholding or if foreseeable harm would result from that disclosure. The legislation also strengthens the Office of Government Information Services, empowering the “FOIA Ombudsman” to be an independent voice for openness, to mediate disputes between agencies and requesters, and to report to Congress – not the Department of Justice – on how agencies are performing under the new FOIA law.

In a statementon the passage of S. 337, the Sunshine in Government Initiative expressed its gratitude to the champions of FOIA reform in the House: Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA.) and in the Senate: Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA.), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Cornyn (R-TX). These leaders worked extremely hard to write and then build support for a bipartisan bill that will help make our government more transparent and accountable to the public. The President is expected to sign the bill into law.

More police body cameras bring public records issues

From The Toledo Blade Government and reporters across Ohio are wading through uncharted technological waters as more body cameras pop up on uniforms amid allegations of police misconduct.

Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland, and some other cities have purchased cameras for at least some of their officers despite unresolved questions raised in a Columbus forum Wednesday over what ultimately happens with the resulting footage and where the line should be drawn between police work and individual privacy.

“The bottom line is the public has called for documentation for police actions, and government is responding to that,” Larry James, attorney for the National Fraternal Order of Police said Wednesday during a Columbus Metropolitan Club forum.

Ohio does not mandate that local governments equip their officers with cameras, but a state House committee recently sent House Bill 407 to the full chamber. Sponsored by Reps. Kevin Boyce (D., Columbus) and Cheryl Grossman (R., Grove City), that bill would require cities with such cameras to adopt public policies regarding their use, video record retention, and public records requests.

The House, however, recessed for the summer without taking up the measure.

Last week the Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases to resolve the question of whether video from body and dashboard cameras is subject to open records law or is exempted as investigative material.

One case involved a fatal police shooting on the campus of the University of Cincinnati in which the officer was indicted. The other involves dashboard video of a state highway patrol chase on I-71.

In both cases, the videos were ultimately released to the requesting media outlets, but the question remains before the court whether such videos are, in fact, public records.

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said state lawmakers inevitably will have to deal with such questions.

“What we don’t want to see happen — and some states have done this unfortunately — is to make all this footage presumptively closed and then only release it at the discretion of government,” he said. “That would defeat the goals of accountability and transparency …

“People forget this sometimes, but government is the custodian of public records, not the owner of public records…,” Mr. Hetzel said.

While expectations for privacy largely go out the window once people step outside, what happens to the right of privacy when a police officer wearing a camera walks into a home?

Continue Reading>>

Formal complaint filed against Huber mayor as spat over councilmen accessing public records continues

From The Dayton Daily News

A discussion about city council members accessing public records during off-hours was pre-empted in part by a formal complaint filed against the mayor.

Councilmember Ed Lyons asked surveillance video screen shots of Councilmen Richard Shaw and Glenn Otto exiting city hall with documents during off hours be placed on Monday night’s work session agenda. Shaw and Otto maintain the documents are copies of public records, but Lyons has argued the actions have placed records in jeopardy.

Before the discussion could take place, however, Mayor Tom McMasters reviewed a complaint filed by a member of the public and obtained by this news agency. The complaint argues that “if there is to be an implication of wrong doing in reference to a missing document against a council member(s) this matter either needs to be filed as a complaint to the Mayor or needs to be held in Executive Session.”

Although Lyons requested the photos be attached to the agenda, the complaint was filed against McMasters in his capacity for setting the agenda for work sessions. Vice Mayor Tyler Starline is conducting the investigation.

The seven-hour public work session – punctuated by one 10 minute break and an executive session to discuss real estate – adjourned around 1 a.m. Aside from the after-hours issue, council discussed additional changes to the records policy at length. Further discussions will continue next month after the law director returns from a personal holiday overseas.

Federal judge overturns Cleveland's restrictions on RNC protests

From The Plain Dealer A federal judge on Thursday scrapped the city of Cleveland's plans for a heightened-security zone that would have encompassed most of downtown during the Republican National Convention, saying that the restrictions are burdensome to people who want to express their free-speech rights.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin's ruling comes 25 days before Republican delegates and leaders will descend upon Cleveland and forces the city to redraw the boundaries to the so-called "event zone," which would have encompassed a 3.5-square-mile area at the heart of the city.

The city indicated it would appeal the judge's order, but the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which brought the lawsuit, said the organization's attorneys are now negotiating at the judge's behest to come up with a compromise because of the short timeframe.

Gwin made his ruling orally, following a hearing. He said a written opinion would follow.

In his comments, the judge attacked several aspects of the event zone and the accompanying restrictions, which the city announced late last month:

• He said the size of the event zone, is "unduly large." It was drawn to go from from West 25th Street to Innerbelt, and from the lake south to the corridor between Orange Avenue and East 22nd Street. It all surrounded the Quicken Loans Arena, where the convention will be held and will be part of an area with even more security.

Continue Reading>>

Jack Greiner: Police camera footage must be disclosed

By Jack Greiner, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP I had the unusual experience this week of arguing two cases before the Ohio Supreme Court back to back.  The cases involved the public record status of police camera. The first case involved an Ohio Highway Patrol dash board camera that captured the pursuit and apprehension of a motorist who was ultimately charged with a number of offenses ranging from a missing license plate to possessing an illegal firearm.

The second case involved a missing license plate as well.  In that case, a University of Cincinnati Police Officer, wearing a body camera, pulled a driver over because the car was missing a license plate.  That encounter escalated and the police officer shot and killed the driver.

The issue before the court was whether the footage in both cases could be classified as a “Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Record.”  If so, the police and prosecutors would have no obligation to provide a copy of the footage to the public or the press.

In a 2001 case called State ex rel Beacon Journal v. Maurer, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that an initial incident report detailing the initial interaction between the police and public related to some occurrence is not an investigatory record.  The Court ordered the report – which contained detailed written narratives provided by four different police officers -- produced upon request, without redaction.

Another way of phrasing the question before the court was whether the Maurer decision would apply to the footage in the two cases.  To the extent the reports set forth the events from that interaction, they are no different from the footage.  One reflects the observations of police on the scene; the other reflects the observations captured by a camera.

But to the extent the question is phrased in that fashion, a related question is: what is the meaning of Maurer?  And why did the court find that the record of the initial interaction between the police and the public be available for immediate and unedited public consumption?

The answer is that the manner in which the police conduct the initial interaction with the public speaks volumes about the police’s relationship with the citizenry and dictates the level of respect citizens will have for the police.  Are police courteous and professional in their dealings with the public or dismissive and confrontational? Do police mete out equal treatment in those encounters?  Are certain citizens afforded better treatment?  Do police use excessive force or take unnecessary risks in their interactions with the public?  Footage of those interactions will answer all of those questions.

And those initial interactions – even the ones at issue in the cases before the court – are not inherently criminal investigations.  A car proceeding down the street with a missing license plate could be doing so for any number of reasons – but that fact alone does not make the driver a criminal. And so too the initial stop – which occurs to initially determine the existing facts – did the plate fall off in route; is it in the car; is there some honest mistake – does not constitute a criminal investigation.

If in the course of the initial interaction the facts suggest a further investigation is needed, then those subsequent steps may fall under CLEIR, but the initial interaction and any record of it does not.

That makes perfect sense.  Because if the entire interaction is “investigatory” the footage may never see the light of day.  And it doesn’t take an extraordinary imagination to think of the potential mischief that could result from this scenario.  Imagine an Ohio town that is less than friendly to outsiders, especially outsiders with dark skin.  Now imagine the police in that town routinely pull drivers of color over and hassle them.  The message is clear: “you’re not welcome here.”  Of course, if the police prepare incident reports of these interactions, there would be no mention of hassling, and no indication of the driver’s race.  All we’d see is a sanitized account in scrubbed language.  But if the police in those encounters were wearing body cameras, we’d see what the drivers looked like.  We’d hear the officer’s tone.  We’d observe body language. And as a result, a much more accurate picture would emerge.

But that accurate picture wouldn’t necessarily emerge if the footage were deemed “investigatory.”  The police could hold it as long as they felt like it.  In the example I mentioned above, the driver would be an “uncharged suspect” and that would allow the footage (and all the footage like it) to be withheld forever.   Which begs the question, how would the press and the public discover and expose the wrongdoing?

And the concern is hardly hypothetical.  We saw last year in Chicago the extreme lengths to which the city and its mayor went to withhold the footage of the Laquan McDonald shooting.  The footage conveniently remained under wraps until after the mayoral election.  Few people consider that a coincidence.  And it illustrates how the “investigatory record” exception can be misused to hide truth.

When I argued the cases this week, a camera recorded the argument and live streamed it to the World Wide Web.  That footage is available in the Ohio Supreme Court’s Web site for anyone to see.  And I have no problem with that.  I am proud of the work I do and happy to represent my clients to the best of my ability.  The world is welcome to watch.  And I suspect 99.9% of police – the ones who do their job professionally and courteously – feel the same way about video capturing their performance.  The rank and file police – who are unburdened by political ambition – aren’t the ones working to shut out the public.  That effort comes from a higher pay grade.

Disclosure leads to closure.  Non-disclosure leads to chaos.  In the cities where riots followed police involved deaths – Ferguson and Baltimore – there was no video of the precipitating incident.  In the cities where police involved deaths did not lead to riots – Cleveland, New York and North Charleston, South Carolina – the public was able to see the video of the event.  Neither of those examples is a coincidence.

The Ohio Supreme Court got it right in 2001 with the Maurer decision.  The Court has a chance now to reiterate the point – the record of the initial interaction between the police and the public is not an investigation.  And that includes the video record.

Court to decide if police dashcams, bodycams are public records

From Court News Ohio A body-worn camera recorded a university police officer’s shooting and killing of a motorist, and a patrol cruiser’s dashboard-mounted video camera captured a high-speed car chase and arrest. In both cases the Cincinnati Enquirer’s requests for copies of the video were denied by law enforcement. The newspaper and other media outlets are now seeking to have the Ohio Supreme Court deem “bodycam” and “dashcam” videos as public records open to immediate inspection.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week on the Enquirer’s requests in two separate cases. The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office contend the videos should be classified as confidential law enforcement investigatory records (CLEIR) that are exempt from release in R.C. 149.43, known as Ohio public records act, and that the delayed release of the videos was reasonable.

University of Cincinnati Bodycam Video Sought In State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, five other media outlets join the Enquirer in seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Hamilton County prosecutor to promptly release bodycam videos. The writ is based on their complaint that video from the July 2015 shooting of Cincinnati resident Samuel DuBose wasn’t made available for nine days.

Ray Tensing, a University of Cincinnati police officer, pulled DuBose over during a traffic stop on a city street near the university. Tensing activated a bodycam as he approached DuBose, and the stop resulted in Tensing killing DuBose. As the Cincinnati Police Department and the university police investigated, a Hamilton County assistant prosecuting attorney arrived on the scene, requested a copy of the bodycam video, and advised the departments not to release the video publicly until the prosecutor’s office could present it to a grand jury.

The media requests for the video from the police and prosecutor were denied. The prosecutor issued a statement saying, “The video will be released at some point – just not right now.” The prosecutor raised the concern that the release of the video could jeopardize Tensing’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, and maintained the video was a CLEIR under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h).

The media outlets filed the writ with the Court, but two days later a grand jury indicted Tensing for murder and voluntary manslaughter, and the prosecutor released the video the same day. The prosecutor argues the action to seek a writ is moot because the recording was released, but the media maintains the situation is capable of repetition and asks the Court to address the issue.

Newspaper Seeks High-Speed Chase Recording In State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v the Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, the Ohio State Highway Patrol received a 911 call in January 2015 from a motorist who saw a vehicle without a rear license plate traveling south on Interstate 71. When a Highway Patrol trooper saw a car matching the description, she followed and activated her emergency lights, which automatically turned on the cruiser’s dashcam. After about a half hour’s pursuit, officers were able to detain the driver, Aaron Teofilo, who was arrested and charged with multiple felonies.

An Enquirer reporter requested dashcam videos along with the 911 call and the arrest and incident report from the Highway Patrol. The records were denied after a county prosecutor asked the agency not to release the information. When the reporter asked about the basis for the rejection, the Patrol cited the CLEIR exception. Teofilo was indicted, and the Enquirer filed the writ. After Teofilo pled guilty to offenses related to the highway pursuit, the Ohio Public Safety Department supplied dashcam recordings to the Enquirer.

The newspaper argues the bodycam and dashcam videos are not investigatory records. Citing previous Court opinions, the Enquirer claims the videos are similar to 911 calls and incident reports, which initiate an investigation but aren’t part of the investigation. The Ohio attorney general, representing the Highway Patrol, and the Hamilton County prosecutor claim the videos are distinctly different from incident reports and 911 calls. They maintain the videos are part of the investigation and aren’t public records.

In addition to the police video cases, the Court will hear two other cases on Tuesday, June 14 at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. The Court’s sessions begin at 9 a.m., and the arguments will be streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel.

Previews Available Along with the brief descriptions below of the remaining two cases, the Office of Public Information today released previews of the four cases.

Groups representing business and retail consumers challenge the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s grant of a rate plan for the Dayton Power & Light Co. (DP&L) that includes a “service stability rider,” which pays the company $330 million over a three-year period. The groups argue In the Matter of the Application of The Dayton Power and Light Company that the rider contains “transition revenues” to be paid by electricity users. When the state deregulated electric generation service and let customers choose suppliers, it allowed DP&L to collect transition fees for a set term that has ended. The groups contend the PUCO is illegally allowing the fees to be passed on while the commission and company argue the fees can be assessed to ensure reliable and stable service within DP&L’s service territory.

In State v. James, a man whose 1998 conviction in Clark County was overturned because a proper waiver of counsel at trial wasn’t obtained has filed a civil case alleging wrongful imprisonment. The man maintains he has identified a procedural error that occurred after sentencing and during or after imprisonment, as mandated by the wrongful imprisonment statute. The state contends the counsel waiver error happened at trial, not post-sentencing, and the other errors the applicant has asserted, including the prosecutor’s decision not to retry him, also don’t meet the law’s requirements.

MetroParks officials respond to lawsuit alleging Sunshine Law violations

From The Vindicator Mill Creek MetroParks officials today responded to a lawsuit filed in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Thursday alleging that park leaders violated Ohio Sunshine Law in its planning of a February staff restructuring that eliminated numerous park jobs.

“It is unfortunate that the tactics utilized by certain individuals and various special interest groups, all of which have been on full display at recent park board meetings, have transitioned into the legal realm,” Young said in a statement sent to The Vindicator.

“These tactics and related false claims will now cause the unfortunate and unnecessary expenditure of critical tax dollars in avenues other than what is vitally important to park users; which is improving the MetroParks. Great things are happening daily at the MetroParks and you can see that in the recent physical improvements at the Golf Course, the Lily Pond and Lanterman’s Mill Parking Lot as well as the new partnerships that provided for the renting of bicycles at the Kirk Road Trailhead.

“The impact of these physical improvements and new recreational opportunities is visible on the smiling faces of the many visitors, of whom we will continue to diligently for,” Young said.

MetroParks board president John Ragan also responded today, saying, “I’m not sure why they filed the lawsuit. I think it’s frivolous. It’s just costing us more and more money to defend what we’ve done, and I think we’ve defended that in the public exactly why we did what we did. I don’t think we violated any Sunshine Laws, so I’m not sure what the whole argument is,” he said.

The lawsuit — filed by Barbara Brothers of Youngstown, and married couple Suzanne Anzellotti and Jim Ray of Poland — alleges that Young and the park board violated state law governing public meetings in its execution of the staff restructuring by planning for the move via email and executive-session meetings. The complaint asks the court, among other things, to declare the position eliminations unlawful and issue an injunction to restore those employees affected by the restructuring to their former positions.