Case Title: State ex rel. WLWT-TV5 v. Leis

Citation: 1997-Ohio-273

Docket Number: 19960141

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. WLWT-TV5 v. Leis, Sheriff, et al. 
[Cite as State ex rel. WLWT-TV5 v. Leis (1997),    Ohio St.3d    .] 
Public records -- Mandamus to compel sheriff’s department to provide 
relator access to investigative file concerning Ohio Brotherhood of 
Deputy Sheriffs’ fundraising activities -- Limited writ compelling 
respondents to provide access to nonexempt records granted and 
request 
for 
records 
exempt 
from 
disclosure 
under 
R.C. 
149.43(A)(2)(c), work product, and R.C. 149.43(A)(4), trial 
preparation records, denied. 
 
(No. 96-141-- Submitted October 8, 1996 -- Decided January 22, 1997.) 
 
In Mandamus. 
 
The Ohio Brotherhood of Deputy Sheriffs (“Brotherhood”), which 
previously served as the bargaining agent for over five-hundred Hamilton County 
corrections officers, engaged in fundraising activities for several years.  The 
Brotherhood sold advertisements in a directory that listed local businesses.  In 
1994, the Brotherhood conducted its fundraising from a sheriff’s substation.    
After business owners complained about high pressure sales tactics used by the 
Brotherhood and questioned who benefited from donations to the group, the 
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department began investigating the Brotherhood in 
late 1994.  The sheriff’s department subsequently forwarded its entire 
 
2
investigative file concerning the Brotherhood to the Hamilton County Prosecuting 
Attorney’s Office for review and further investigation.  The records in the 
possession of the sheriff and prosecutor’s offices were compiled with the specific 
intention of preparing for and prosecuting criminal actions.     
 
As a result of the investigation by the prosecutor’s office in July 1995, a 
Hamilton County grand jury indicted Lynne Patterson, treasurer of an anti-merger 
citizens group, on two counts of perjury and one count of election falsification 
relating to a donation made by the Brotherhood to the anti-merger group in 1994.   
In October 1995, Patterson pled guilty to one count of election fraud (a reduced 
charge) and one count of election falsification.  
 
Since early 1995, relator, WLWT-TV5 (“WLWT”), a Cincinnati television 
station, requested on several occasions that respondents, Hamilton County Sheriff 
Simon L. Leis, Jr., and Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph T. Deters, 
provide it with the opportunity to inspect and copy all records in their possession 
relating to the Brotherhood.  Respondents refused WLWT’s requests on the basis 
that the records were exempt from disclosure.  WLWT then filed this action for a 
writ of mandamus to compel respondents to provide access to the requested 
records.   
 
3
 
In February 1996, as a result of the respondents’ investigation, the 
Brotherhood, its president, Sergeant Theodore Hornsby, and a professional 
solicitor employed by the Brotherhood, John Henry Taylor, were charged with 
various criminal misdemeanors relating to the solicitation of funds for charitable 
purposes.  The Brotherhood was charged with failing to file an annual registration 
statement in violation of R.C. 1716.02 and failing to file an annual financial report 
in violation of R.C. 1716.04.  Hornsby was charged with failing to file an annual 
registration statement in violation of R.C. 1716.02 and failing to enter into a 
written contract with a professional solicitor, and further failing to comply with 
the requirements of such contract in violation of R.C. 1716.08.  Taylor was 
charged with the same offenses as Hornsby.  Hornsby entered pleas of no contest 
to the charges.  Hornsby was subsequently sentenced.  Taylor, a Florida resident, 
has not been arrested or brought to trial on the charges.  Further charges may be 
brought by the prosecutor in the future.   
 
The cause is now before this court on the parties’ submitted evidence and 
briefs, an in camera inspection of the subject records, and WLWT’s request for an 
inventory of the sealed records. 
____________________ 
 
4
 
Frost & Jacobs and Richard M. Goehler, for relator. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. 
Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  WLWT seeks a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to 
provide access to the requested records.  Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to 
compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.  State ex rel. 
Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 28, 661 N.E.2d 180, 184 (“Master 
I”).  “Exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian of the 
public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.”  
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 245, 247, 643 
N.E.2d 126, 128. 
 
Respondents contend that the records are exempt from disclosure as R.C. 
149.43(A)(2)(c) work product and R.C. 149.43(A)(4) trial preparation records.  
R.C. 149.43(A)(1) excepts from the definition of “public record” “confidential law 
enforcement 
investigatory 
record[s]” 
and 
“trial 
preparation 
record[s].”  
“Confidential law enforcement investigatory records” include records pertaining to 
a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature which, if released, would create a 
 
5
high probability of disclosure of “specific investigatory work product.”  R.C. 
149.43(A)(2)(c).  “Trial preparation records” are records containing information 
specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or 
criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and 
personal trial preparation of an attorney.  R.C. 149.43(A)(4). 
 
Information assembled by law enforcement officials in connection with a 
probable or pending criminal proceeding is, by the work product exception found 
in R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c), excepted from required release to the public, as said 
information is compiled in anticipation of litigation whether or not some of such 
information may be disclosed to the defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 16.  State ex 
rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph 
five of the syllabus.  “[W]here it is evident that a crime has occurred, although no 
suspect has yet been charged, any notes, working papers, memoranda, or similar 
materials compiled by law enforcement officials in anticipation of a subsequent 
criminal proceeding are exempt from disclosure as R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) work 
product.”  State ex rel. Leonard v. White (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 516, 518, 664 
N.E.2d 527, 529.  Here, shortly after respondents’ investigation commenced, it 
became evident that crimes had occurred. Therefore, most of the sealed records 
 
6
constitute exempt work product, since they were compiled by respondents in 
anticipation of subsequent criminal proceedings.  Id. 
 
Similarly, the requested records are contained in the file of respondent 
prosecutor, who has prosecuted some of the charged offenses arising from the 
investigation.  Trial preparation records that a criminal prosecutor has disclosed or 
may disclose to the defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 16 are not thereby subject to 
release as public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and are specifically exempt from 
release in accordance with R.C. 149.43(A)(4).  Steckman, supra, at paragraph 
three of the syllabus. 
 
Although the sealed investigative records indicate several possible areas of 
criminal conduct, all of the records are relevant to the respondents’ general 
investigation of the Brotherhood as well as the particular criminal offenses 
charged thus far.  For example, the Brotherhood, Hornsby, and Taylor were 
 
7
charged with violating R.C. 1716.02 by failing to file annual charitable 
organization registration statements.  R.C. 1716.02(A) provides that “[e]very 
charitable organization, except those exempted under section 1716.03 of the 
Revised Code, that intends to solicit contributions in this state by any means or 
have contributions solicited in this state on its behalf by any other person, 
charitable organization, commercial co-venturer, or professional solicitor, or that 
participates in a charitable sales promotion, prior to engaging in any of these 
activities and annually thereafter, shall file a registration statement with the 
attorney general upon a form prescribed by him.”  The investigative records 
provide evidence of the Brotherhood’s solicitation of charitable contributions in 
Ohio over the course of several years, which is pertinent to the R.C. 1716.02(A) 
violations.  While some of the sealed records have greater relevance to uncharged 
offenses, this does not alter the records’ general relevance to the offenses already 
charged and their consequent exempt status as work product and trial preparation 
records. 
 
WLWT claims that the work product and trial preparation exemptions are 
inapplicable because Patterson, Hornsby, and Taylor have already been charged 
with certain crimes and Patterson and Hornsby have been convicted and 
 
8
sentenced.  WLWT argues that Steckman limits the viability of these exemptions 
to “pending” criminal matters and that Leonard is distinguishable because in that 
case, no suspect had yet been charged. 
 
WLWT’s contention is meritless.  Steckman expressly held at paragraph 
four of its syllabus that “[o]nce a record becomes exempt from release as a ‘trial 
preparation record,’ that record does not lose its exempt status unless and until all 
‘trials,’ ‘actions’ and/or ‘proceedings’ have been fully completed.”  Analogously, 
once applicable, the records continue to be exempt work product until all 
proceedings are fully completed.  See Steckman, 70 Ohio St.3d at 437, 639 N.E.2d 
at 96 (“The records sought by appellant are exempt from disclosure based upon the 
work product exception of R.C. 149.43[A][2][c].  Accordingly, we hold that a 
defendant in a criminal case who has exhausted the direct appeals of her or his 
conviction may not avail herself or himself of R.C. 149.43 to support a petition for 
postconviction relief.”).  Leonard did not modify Steckman. 
 
As we explained in Steckman, 70 Ohio St.3d at 432, 639 N.E.2d at 92-93: 
 
“This holding may seem harsh but it is not without good reason.  *** [W]e 
still are faced with the situation in which a defendant might be granted a new trial, 
on his or her petition for postconviction relief.  Since the possibility of retrial 
 
9
remains, the defendant, who has obtained records during postconviction 
proceedings, would have on retrial more information than she or he would be 
entitled to possess if limited to discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16.  This, of course, 
could present (at best) an anomalous result.” 
 
In the case at bar, although Patterson and Hornsby have been convicted of 
and sentenced for certain crimes, further proceedings on these offenses are 
possible because they could be granted a new trial pursuant to (1) Crim.R. 32.1, 
permitting the withdrawal of their guilty and no contest pleas, or (2) a petition for 
postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21.  In addition, Taylor has been charged 
but remains untried so the possibility of a trial still exists.  Therefore, based on 
Steckman and Leonard, the vast majority of the requested records are exempt from 
disclosure as R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) work product and R.C. 149.43(A)(4) trial 
preparation records. 
 
In addition, the in camera review of the sealed records establishes the 
applicability of other exemptions.  R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) excepts records that 
identify persons who have neither been charged with nor arrested for an offense.  
Master I, 75 Ohio St.3d at 30, 661 N.E.2d at 186, citing State ex rel. Moreland v. 
Dayton (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 129, 130, 616 N.E.2d 234, 236.  Many of the sealed 
 
10
records identify uncharged suspects and are exempt under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a). 
The sealed records also include the following exempt records:  (1) LEADS 
printouts, which are exempt under R.C. 149.43(A)(1) and Ohio Adm. Code 
4501:2-10-06, State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 343, 
667 N.E.2d 974, 977 (Master II); (2) Social Security Numbers, which are exempt 
under R.C. 149.43(A)(1) and the federal constitutional right to privacy, State ex 
rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 605, 640 
N.E.2d 164; and (3) grand jury testimony and witness subpoenas, which are 
exempt under R.C. 149.43(A)(1) and Crim.R. 6(E), State ex rel. Beacon Journal 
Publishing Co. v. Waters (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 321, 617 N.E.2d 1110. 
 
WLWT contends that any exemptions are inapplicable because of the 
numerous media reports concerning the investigation of the Brotherhood.  
However, nothing in the foregoing exemptions precludes their effectiveness 
merely because the investigation has been the subject of publicity.  Absent 
evidence that respondents have already disclosed the investigatory records to the 
public and thereby waived application of certain exemptions, the exemptions are 
fully applicable.  See, e.g., Master II, 76 Ohio St.3d  at 342-343, 667 N.E.2d at 
976; cf. State ex rel. Zuern v. Leis (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 22, 564 N.E.2d 81, 
 
11
84.  Since there is no evidence that the sealed records have been previously 
released by respondents to the public, WLWT’s argument lacks merit. 
 
WLWT next asserts that respondents must disclose records which are 
clearly not exempt, e.g., the Patterson indictment.  In general, most records 
contained in a prosecutor’s file in a pending criminal matter are exempt.  
Steckman, 70 Ohio St.3d at 431-432, 639 N.E.2d at 92 (“It is difficult to conceive 
of anything in a prosecutor’s file, in a pending criminal matter, that would not be 
either material compiled in anticipation of a specific criminal proceeding or the 
personal trial preparation of the prosecutor.”).  However, not every record 
contained within a prosecutor’s file is exempt.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Mayes v. 
Holman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134; State ex rel. 
Carpenter v. Tubbs Jones (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 579, 580, 651 N.E.2d 993, 994.  
Certain records are unquestionably nonexempt and do not become exempt simply 
because they are placed in a prosecutor’s file.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. 
Hamilton Cty. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 378, 662 N.E.2d 334, 338.  An 
examination of the sealed records reveals the following nonexempt records:  The 
Patterson indictment, copies of various Revised Code provisions, newspaper 
articles, a blank charitable organization registration statement form, the 
 
12
Brotherhood’s Yearbook and Buyer’s Guide, the transcript of the Hornsby plea 
hearing, a videotape of television news reports, and a campaign committee finance 
report filed with the board of elections.  Although respondents claim that any 
records involving Patterson were not requested by WLWT, WLWT’s request for 
any records relating to the Brotherhood was broad enough to encompass the 
Patterson records.  In fact, the Patterson records are included in respondent 
prosecutor’s general investigative file relating to the Brotherhood, and 
respondents do not object to these records’ inclusion in this mandamus action.  
Thus, the nonexempt Patterson indictment is one of the subject records. 
 
Therefore, based on the submitted evidence and an in camera review of the 
sealed records, we grant WLWT a limited writ of mandamus compelling 
respondents to provide access to the previously specified nonexempt records.  In 
all other respects, WLWT’s request for a writ of mandamus is denied.  WLWT’s 
request for attorney fees is denied because, for the most part, its mandamus action 
is without merit.  See, e.g., Leonard, 75 Ohio St.3d at 519, 664 N.E.2d at 530.1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Writ granted in part and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
denied in part. 
 
13
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
                                          
 
1  
WLWT filed a motion for an inventory of records filed for in camera review 
“in order to assure a full submission of documents and records ***.”   However, 
respondents have provided the court with a sealed index of the submitted records.  
In addition, as in Master II, 76 Ohio St.3d at 343-344, 667 N.E.2d at 977, a review 
of the sealed investigatory file indicates a thorough investigation by law 
enforcement officials.  There is no evidence that respondents have not submitted 
all pertinent records for the court’s in camera review.  We therefore deny 
WLWT’s motion.