Case Title: State ex rel. Kim v. Wachenschwanz

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1616

Docket Number: 20011176

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Kim v. Wachenschwanz, 93 Ohio St.3d 586, 
2001-Ohio-1616] 
 
 
[THE STATE EX REL.] KIM v. WACHENSCHWANZ, MARSHAL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Kim v. Wachenschwanz (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 586.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel village of Chauncey’s auxiliary 
police force marshal to provide relator access to log books and time sheets 
of all Chauncey police personnel from January 1, 2001 through May 30, 
2001 — Writ granted, when — Attorney fees awarded, when. 
(No. 01-1176 — Submitted September 18, 2001 — Decided November 14, 2001.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Ordinance No. 10-19-99 of the village of Chauncey, Ohio, 
created the village’s auxiliary police force and imposed upon it the following 
pertinent duties: 
 
“e)  All police personnel must keep an accurate log concerning the time when 
they are on duty and the mileage they put on the police cruiser.  The Marshal is to 
present the log sheets at each council meeting. 
 
“* * * 
 
“g)  There will be a patrol log of every officer on duty. 
 
“* * * 
 
“k) There is to be more patrolling of the Village and each auxiliary shall 
perform at least fifteen (15) hours a month in the Village and 1/3 of those hours to be 
foot patrol.  The Marshal shall perform at least 1/3 of his schedule on foot patrol.  All 
hours will be logged. 
 
“* * * 
 
“t)  All log sheets will be brought to council meetings for review by council 
members.  * * * 
 
“* * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
“x) The Marshal will keep all records of the officers on duty, and make them 
available to council as requested.” 
 
Relator, Brenda Kim, a village council member since March 2001, had 
requested these records from respondent, Village Marshal Charles Wachenschwanz, 
as well as from other village officials, on several occasions, but despite the village 
solicitor’s advice, they failed to produce these records. 
 
By letter dated May 30, 2001, Kim requested that Wachenschwanz provide 
her with access to the following records:  (1)  logbooks of all Chauncey police 
personnel from January 1, 2001 through May 30, 2001; (2) time sheets of all 
Chauncey police personnel from January 1, 2001 through May 30, 2001; and (3) 
Wachenschwanz’s police report concerning a theft that had occurred at Kim’s home 
and had been reported by her on June 15, 2000.  Wachenschwanz denied the request. 
 
On June 26, 2001, Kim filed a complaint in this court for a writ of mandamus 
to compel Wachenschwanz to provide her with access to the requested records.  Kim 
also requests reasonable attorney fees.  Despite being served with a copy of the 
complaint, Wachenschwanz failed to file a timely response to the complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court for its determination under S.Ct.Prac.R. 
X(5). 
 
We must now determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a 
peremptory writ is appropriate.  S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5); State ex rel. Crobaugh v. White 
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 470, 471, 746 N.E.2d 1120, 1122.  If it appears beyond doubt 
that relator is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, a peremptory writ should 
issue.  State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 716 N.E.2d 1114, 
1116. 
 
Wachenschwanz was served with a copy of the complaint on July 2, but he 
failed to file a response within twenty-one days of service, i.e., by July 23, as required 
by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5).  In deciding whether Kim is entitled to the requested writ, we 
must look “beyond the simple admissions resulting from a failure to serve a 
January Term, 2001 
3 
responsive pleading.”  State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 110, 
112, 637 N.E.2d 325, 326. 
 
Here, however, like the relator in State ex rel. Youngstown City School Dist. 
Bd. of Edn. v. Youngstown (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 701 N.E.2d 986, 988, Kim 
established her right to a writ of mandamus to compel access to the requested records 
by satisfactory evidence.  Attached to her complaint is an affidavit specifying that she 
requested public records and that Wachenschwanz refused access to those records. 
 
Under Chauncey Ordinance No. 10-19-99, the log sheets referring to time on 
duty and mileage used by police personnel are public records that must be presented 
at each council meeting.  In addition, under the ordinance, the patrol log sheets are 
reviewed by council members at the meetings.  Further, there is nothing to counter 
Kim’s evidence that the police report concerning a theft that had occurred at her 
home was a public record.  In sum, the log sheets, time sheets, and police report 
appear to be comparable to routine offense and incident reports, which are subject to 
immediate release upon request.  See State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. 
Maurer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 54, 57, 741 N.E.2d 511, 514; State ex rel. Steckman v. 
Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph five of the syllabus. 
 
Notably, Wachenschwanz has evidently never asserted any exemption from 
disclosure when denying Kim’s records requests, and he also did not file anything in 
response to Kim’s mandamus action.  “ ‘Exemptions from disclosure must be strictly 
construed against the public records custodian, and the custodian has the burden to 
establish an exemption.’ ”  State ex rel. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 84 
Ohio St.3d at 53, 701 N.E.2d at 988, quoting State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. 
Network, Inc. v. Petro (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 261, 266, 685 N.E.2d 1223, 1228. 
 
Based on the foregoing, Kim is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus to 
compel Wachenschwanz to provide her with access to all of the requested records. 
 
In addition, she is entitled to an award of attorney fees.  She has established a 
sufficient public benefit by access to the requested records, which may result in 
Wachenschwanz’s abiding by the terms of both R.C. 149.43 and Ordinance No. 10-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
19-99 of the village of Chauncey in the future.  And Wachenschwanz failed to 
comply with Kim’s requests for records and failed to specify any reasons justifying 
his noncompliance.  State ex rel. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 84 Ohio 
St.3d at 54, 701 N.E.2d at 988; State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 
312, 317, 750 N.E.2d 156, 162.  Wachenschwanz also did not file anything in 
opposition to Kim’s mandamus action or her request for attorney fees. 
 
Accordingly, we grant the peremptory writ of mandamus and award attorney 
fees.  We order Kim’s attorneys to submit a bill and documentation in support of 
attorney fees in accordance with DR 2-106(A) and (B).  Kim’s counsel are also 
ordered to submit evidence, preferably including affidavits and a copy of any written 
fee agreement entered into with Kim, specifying the attorney fees that she actually 
paid or is obligated to pay her attorneys for this mandamus action.  See State ex rel. 
Calvary v. Upper Arlington (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 1415, 735 N.E.2d 455, and cases 
cited therein. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment. 
__________________ 
 
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil, LLP, and Geoffrey J. Moul; Equal Justice 
Foundation and Gary Smith, for relator. 
__________________