Page 13 - NovemberDecember24 Report

audio or video recording of a victim of
violating a protection order, an offense of
violence, or a sexually oriented offense,
regarding a case that is submitted to a
court, a law enforcement agency or officer,
or a prosecutor or filed with a clerk of
court, including, but not limited to, plead-
ings, motions, exhibits, transcripts, orders,
and judgments, or any documentation,
including audio or video recordings of a
victim of violating a protection order, an
offense of violence, or a sexually oriented
offense, prepared or created by a court,
clerk of court, or law enforcement agency
or officer, or a prosecutor regarding a
case.”
Section (D) of the statute provides:
“[o]n written request of the victim or
victim’s representative to a law enforce-
ment agency, prosecutor’s office, or court,
all case documents related to the cases
or matters specified by the victim main-
tained by the entity to whom the victim
or victim’s representative submitted the
request shall be redacted prior to public
release pursuant to section 149.43 of
the Revised Code to remove the name,
address, or other identifying informa-
tion of the victim.” One exception to
this sweeping provision is that the redac-
tion provision “does not apply to any
disclosure of the name, address, or other
identifying information of a victim of a
criminal offense or delinquent act that
resulted in the death of the victim.”
The statute raises several issues,
both practical and legal. As a practical
matter, some police departments seem
to have missed the provision exempting
information about dead victims. In my
experience, I have seen police departments
reflexively cite to “Marsy’s Law” to with-
hold information about deceased victims.
This type of behavior happened with the
adoption of HIPAA – many public offices
who were not covered by the statute none-
theless withheld any information that
seemed in any way related to “health.”
Eventually, the offices came around, and
I suspect police departments will do the
same here. But it’s frustrating.
Two legal issues that arise from
the statute’s adoption are more inter-
esting. The first is a separation of powers
issue, specifically, who has jurisdiction
over court records. Based on the Ohio
Supreme Court ruling in State ex rel.
Parisi v. Dayton Bar Ass’n Certified Griev.
Comm., 159 Ohio St. 3d 211, 2019-Ohio-
5157, 150 N.E.3d 43, where the Court
ruled “the Rules of Superintendence are
the sole vehicle by which a party may
seek to obtain [court]records” it seems
like it’s up to the Court to decide who has
access to court records and when. It’s not
clear how the Public Records Act applies
to court documents, but 2930.07 explic-
itly cites to 149.43 for authority to redact
them. It does not appear that the Ohio
Supreme Court has weighed in yet on this
conflict, but it seems ripe.
The other interesting legal issue is
whether police officers injured in the line
of duty are “victims” under the statute.
This question now rears its head in every
officer involved shooting. Before the
enactment of 2930.07 no one suggested
that Section 10a shielded the identity of
police officers from public scrutiny if
they’d been involved in a shootout. Now,
however, thanks to 2930.07’s sweeping
language, police departments point to the
statute as they reject requests for records
detailing the activities of officers who use
deadly force.
There is currently a mandamus action
pending before the Ohio Supreme Court
– State ex rel. Gatehouse Media Ohio
Holdings II, Inc. dba The Columbus
Dispatch v. the City of Columbus Police
Department that raises this question. The
case has been fully briefed, and is waiting
to be scheduled for oral argument. How
this turns out will be interesting. But as
a matter of public policy, the Legislature
should consider amending 2930.07 to
address this issue, without waiting for a
court decision.
Marsy’s Law is no doubt well inten-
tioned, but the Courts and the Legislature
should give serious thought to the issues
raised by the adoption of 2930.07. As
Martin Luther King once said, “the time
is always right to do what is right.”
Greiner is the area’s leading authority on media law
and First Amendment matters. He has represented
clients in public records disputes, access to courts, open
meeting cases and a variety of defamation cases. Jack
is also an experienced commercial litigator, handling
contract disputes for clients in state and federal courts
in Ohio and elsewhere.
THE REPORT | November/December 2024 | CincyBar.org 13