Title: State ex rel. Burfitt v. Sehlmeyer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Burfitt v. Sehlmeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5147.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-5147 
THE STATE EX REL. BURFITT v. SEHLMEYER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Burfitt v. Sehlmeyer, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-5147.] 
Mandamus—Public records—The requested correctional-officer shift rosters are 
security records exempt from public-records disclosure under R.C. 
149.433(A) and (B). 
(No. 2020-0136—Submitted August 18, 2020—Decided November 5, 2020.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  
{¶ 1} Relator, Lawrence Burfitt, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional 
Institution (“TCI”), seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the production of shift 
rosters that show the duty assignments of correctional officers within the prison.  
Respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, the public-records custodian at TCI, withheld the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
records from Burfitt on the basis that they are security records exempt from public-
records disclosure. 
{¶ 2} In McDougald v. Greene, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4268, ___ 
N.E.3d ___, we held that shift-assignment duty rosters at a different prison were 
security records exempt from public-records disclosure under R.C. 149.433(A) and 
(B).  Because the records in this case reveal the same types of information as the 
records in McDougald, we likewise find that the shift rosters sought by Burfitt are 
security records.  We therefore deny the writ. 
I.  Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 3} On August 22, 2019, Burfitt submitted to Sehlmeyer a public-records 
request seeking “first, second, third, and fourth shift roster[s]” from TCI.  
Sehlmeyer responded to Burfitt by letter dated August 26, 2019, stating that the 
shift rosters were not public records under the exemption for security records.  See 
R.C. 149.433. 
{¶ 4} Burfitt filed this action on January 27, 2020, seeking a writ of 
mandamus ordering Sehlmeyer to produce the requested records.  Burfitt also seeks 
statutory damages of $1,000 and recovery of court costs.  Sua sponte, we issued an 
alternative writ and set a schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefing on 
the merits in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05.  158 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2020-Ohio-
2815, 144 N.E.3d 459.  We also ordered Sehlmeyer to submit the records at issue 
for in camera review.  159 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2020-Ohio-3713, 149 N.E.3d 533. 
{¶ 5} The withheld records responsive to Burfitt’s request are six pages that 
comprise the correctional-officer rosters for TCI’s first, second, and third shifts on 
August 22, 2019.  (Because Sehlmeyer identified no “fourth shift” roster, we 
assume there is no fourth shift at TCI.)  Each shift roster consists of two pages. 
{¶ 6} The first-shift roster is labeled “Toledo Correctional Institution 1st 
Shift” in the left margin.  The top of the first page shows columns labeled “Post,” 
“1st Officer,” and “Support.”  Listed under “Post” are assignments, which appear 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
to be delineated by specific location, task, or code.  Under the “1st Officer” column 
and beside each location is either an officer’s name or the word “secured.”  
Officers’ names also appear under the “Support” column for some, but not all, 
locations.  Elsewhere on the page, lists of names appear under headings such as 
“Relief Officers,” “Freeze List,” “Sick Leave,” “Vacation,” and “Firearms.”  The 
page is color-coded to designate various officers as “not firearms certified,” “phase 
1” “phase 2,” “lower unit responders,” and/or “upper unit responders.”  The page 
also includes the total number of officers assigned to the first shift, the number of 
officers on and off duty, the number of officers assigned to “permanent posts” 
during that shift, the number of officers assigned to “additional posts,” and the 
locations of the additional posts.  The second page of the first-shift roster is titled 
“Overtime Control Sheet” and contains information about which correctional 
officers are working overtime on that shift. 
{¶ 7} The second- and third-shift rosters are substantially similar in form 
and content to the first- shift roster.    
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 8} Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, requires a public office to 
promptly make copies of public records available to any person upon request.  R.C. 
149.43(B)(1).  Mandamus is an appropriate action by which to compel compliance 
with R.C. 149.43.  R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b); State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for 
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 9} To be entitled to the writ, Burfitt must demonstrate by clear and 
convincing evidence that he has a clear legal right to the requested records and that 
Sehlmeyer has a clear legal duty to provide them.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer 
v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10.  We construe 
R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of 
disclosure.  State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, 899 N.E.2d 961, ¶ 17.  Exemptions under the Public 
Records Act are strictly construed against the public-records custodian, who bears 
the burden of establishing the exemption’s applicability.  State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio 
State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 2013-Ohio-3720, 995 N.E.2d 1175, ¶ 23.  
To meet this burden, a custodian must prove that the requested records fall squarely 
within the exemption.  Id. 
{¶ 10} It is undisputed that TCI is a public office within the meaning of the 
Public Records Act.  Burfitt is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure 
of the requested records unless Sehlmeyer proves that the records are subject to a 
statutory exemption. 
{¶ 11} Sehlmeyer withheld the shift rosters as “security records” exempt 
from disclosure under R.C. 149.433(A) and (B).  Sehlmeyer argues that the shift 
rosters fall within this exemption because they contain “information directly used 
for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, 
interference, or sabotage,” R.C. 149.433(A).  Though the general purpose of a shift 
roster is to organize and assign correctional officers to their posts within the prison, 
the shift rosters at issue contain additional information, which Sehlmeyer cites to 
justify withholding them as security records under R.C. 149.433(A).  In an affidavit, 
Sehlmeyer explains:   
 
[TCI’s] shift rosters fall under the security record exemption 
because the document’s nature and intended purpose is [to] protect 
the institution from nefarious means.  A shift roster includes a color-
coordinated key that effectively reveals the name, time, and location 
of every corrections officer on a present day at [TCI].  Consistent 
with R.C. 149.433, a shift roster serves its purpose in preventing 
attack, interference, or sabotage.  Likewise, a shift roster documents 
[TCI’s] lines of defense by disclosing the institution’s response plan 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
in the event of an emergency.  The release of such information 
immediately jeopardizes the security of the institution and its 
internal measures in thwarting attacks, maintaining order, and 
protecting the prison, its staff, and its inmates. 
 
{¶ 12} In McDougald, we found that similar information in the shift rosters 
of another prison qualified as “information directly used for protecting or 
maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage” 
within the meaning of R.C. 149.433(A)(1).  McDougald, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-
Ohio-4268, ___N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 13} The shift rosters in this case show the identity and location of 
correctional officers posted throughout TCI for each shift.  And as Sehlmeyer notes, 
the shift rosters also identify which officers are not firearms certified.  This 
information could help to facilitate an attack on the prison generally or on specific 
officers, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the institution.  See id.  The information 
in the shift rosters could also reveal potential areas of lessened security, as well as 
differences in security levels between different shifts at TCI.  And the information 
disclosing which officers are assigned to which posts could be used to target 
individual officers, giving the person in possession of such information the ability 
to track specific officers’ whereabouts.  This is precisely the type of information 
that in McDougald we found to fall within the definition of a security record.  Id. 
{¶ 14} Further, as Sehlmeyer notes in her affidavit, the shift rosters provide 
information about TCI’s response plans in the event of an emergency.  This 
testimony is corroborated by the color codes on the shift rosters, which identify 
certain officers as “upper level responders” and “lower level responders,” in 
addition to the locations to which they are assigned to respond.  The shift roster 
therefore discloses information about the prison’s strategy in responding to a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
disturbance or attack.  This information could divulge which locations are most 
vulnerable to attack.  See id. 
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the shift rosters Burfitt seeks 
are security records exempt from public-records disclosure under R.C. 149.433(A) 
and (B).  In light of that holding, we have no occasion to reach Sehlmeyer’s other 
arguments for exemption. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Because the shift rosters requested by Burfitt are security records 
exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, we deny the writ.  Because 
we deny the writ, we also deny Burfitt’s request for court costs and statutory 
damages. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Lawrence Burfitt, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Zachary S. O’Driscoll, Assistant 
Attorney General, for respondent. 
_________________