Case Title: State ex rel. Miller v. Pinkney

Citation: 2017-Ohio-1335

Docket Number: 2015-0612

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Miller v. Pinkney, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1335.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-1335 
THE STATE EX REL. MILLER v. PINKNEY, SHERIFF, ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Miller v. Pinkney, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-1335.] 
Mandamus—Public Records Act—R.C. 149.43—Routine incident reports are 
public records—Writ granted in part and denied in part. 
(No. 2015-0612—Submitted February 7, 2017—Decided April 12, 2017.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Mark W. Miller, filed this original action in mandamus 
against the Cuyahoga County sheriff.  Frank Bova held that office at the time this 
litigation commenced, and therefore all prior rulings in this case were issued under 
the caption State ex rel. Miller v. Bova.  Clifford Pinkney currently serves as 
Cuyahoga County sheriff and has been automatically substituted as respondent in 
place of Bova.  Civ.R. 25(D)(1).  The mandamus action seeks to compel the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
production of the following records pursuant to R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records 
Act:  
 
all offense or incident reports in the possession, custody or control 
of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office in which Edward 
FitzGerald was identified in any of the following capacities: (i) 
reportee; (ii) complainant; or (iii) victim. 
 
Respondent Judy Blatnik, the public records manager for the sheriff, denied the 
request, asserting the records were security records pursuant to R.C. 
149.433(A)(3)(a)—recodified in 2016 as R.C. 149.433(A)(1), 2016 Sub.S.B. No. 
321. 
{¶ 2} This court sua sponte ordered the respondents to  
 
submit under seal each offense and incident report in the possession 
of the sheriff’s office that is responsive to relator Mark Mi1ler’s 
request so that the court may review the records in camera to 
determine which reports may be released and which reports satisfy 
the definition of a “security record” in R.C. 149.433. 
 
State ex rel. Miller v. Bova, 147 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2016-Ohio-8121, 64 N.E.3d 
1001. 
{¶ 3} Incident reports “initiate criminal investigations but are not part of the 
investigation.”  State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio 
St.3d 54, 56, 741 N.E.2d 511 (2001).  Routine offense and incident reports are 
public records and are “normally subject to immediate release upon request.”  State 
ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530,  
¶ 13.  In contrast, a security record is “[a]ny record that contains information 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against 
attack, interference, or sabotage.”  R.C. 149.433(A)(1).  A security record is not a 
public record and “is not subject to mandatory release or disclosure” pursuant to 
the Public Records Act.  R.C. 149.433(B)(1). 
{¶ 4} Upon examination of the records delivered to this court pursuant to 
our order, we have determined that among the records are incident reports dated 
May 1, 2012; June 1, 2012; September 26, 2012; March 18, 2013; October 1, 2013; 
April 24, 2014; May 14, 2014; August 2, 2014; and August 27, 2014—all of which 
are attached to this opinion as an appendix—they are not security records and are 
subject to release with the redaction of exempt information.  We therefore grant the 
writ in part and deny it in part, and we award costs and reasonable attorney fees 
which will be determined upon review of Miller’s filing of an itemized application. 
Writ granted in part  
and denied in part. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman; Koehler Fitzgerald, 
L.L.C., and Daniel P. Carter; and Finney Law Firm, L.L.C., and Christopher P. 
Finney, for relator. 
 
Robert J. Triozzi, Cuyahoga County Law Director, and Robin M. Wilson, 
Assistant Law Director, for respondents. 
_________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

APPENDIX

Soy Incident (7Zo~nae |
ee Geeas

          

  
January Term, 2017

 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

Rene Sel iene a ono —
Sieeiee wrsusa nen epee ane a

Seis ater at ecamapionetee eet

 

 
January Term, 2017

 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

~ aeeten
Some SO Om
January Term, 2017

   

‘Semon seats mn
aun
oe soe ot mpc

si
[Seven en
pe emo esis
[Sareea at wmuae mae omer,
|S Sire mone ecasncn neue

-r PONE CS rm

oo
i= mee = i
1 Er
omens :

or
ppecene

=: Se sou Sat ceeeennomen
Ione se can pee

eee cece

 
SUPREME COURT oF O10

 

6 Cuyahogs County Sheriffs Office

   
January Term, 2017

 

ec ayn ae

—
| Ree a Sa iy oe mop
Sm Stecieoes Eon

  
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

snremeon memenmenwimmenrm eentemn nes
‘ticmmnceeasenesreree,
[percoes retetuen cence ear nemen ny ae
Forcier eine pa
Scie aaceaiean smnademtee serene

SSSR er rem conte tens ore ene

 

  
January Term, 2017

Peat Dap Be Leet 2 me °

=
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

SSS eens intr necer mn ee ena es

a
om fe cay
January Term, 2017

 

Seicmas imer sex weaamrereteyemetoney
stone co uineeercamee sien

 

serpent prinSE10 CCO¥RES COW. oad
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

 

Eee

 

 
January Term, 2017

 

 

 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

 

 

‘Saat Gnasher Oe ate aie

@ Les0e Goins Shas: Oca

  

Sc Ss MN oN RSME
SS Rac EE RRR

Siem vas Woy es nce btaeetunearawione os ep
Aen ae ae

  

 

sor Se ares neat ean |
Raion went 5 a |

 
January Term, 2017

 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

   

ere
a

 
January Term, 2017

 

a
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10