Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati

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. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3876.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-3876 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, A DIVISION OF GANNETT GP 
MEDIA, INC. v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati, Slip Opinion 
No. 2019-Ohio-3876.] 
Mandamus—Public records—R.C. 149.43—Exemption for confidential law-
enforcement investigatory records—City’s redactions in videos were 
proper—Writ of mandamus denied because city provided requested body-
camera videos—City did not act in good faith when it voluntarily released 
videos after mandamus action was commenced but before court issued an 
order concluding whether records should have been dismissed—Request for 
reasonable attorney fees and costs granted. 
(No. 2017-1618—Submitted May 21, 2019—Decided September 26, 2019.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
FISCHER, J. 
{¶ 1} In this case, relator, the Cincinnati Enquirer (“the Enquirer”), seeks a 
writ of mandamus and an award of attorney fees and costs against respondent, the 
city of Cincinnati, in connection with a request for body-camera footage.  For the 
reasons set forth below, we deny the request for a writ of mandamus but grant an 
award of attorney fees and court costs. 
I.  Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 2} On August 8, 2017, while on duty and responding to a service call, 
Cincinnati police officers arrested Richard Coleman and James Crawley.  Coleman 
and Crawley resisted, and the officers used a Taser to subdue the two men.  
Coleman and Crawley were charged with resisting arrest under R.C. 2921.33 and 
other offenses. 
{¶ 3} Pursuant to Cincinnati Police Procedure 12.540, the officers were 
wearing body cameras during the incident.  On October 31, 2017, James Pilcher, a 
reporter for the Enquirer, requested public records, including the body-camera 
footage, from the police department.  On November 2, 2017, the city denied the 
records request on the basis of R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h), which provides an exception 
to the disclosure of public records that are “confidential law enforcement 
investigatory records” (“CLEIRS”). 
{¶ 4} On November 14, 2017, the Enquirer filed this original action for a 
writ of mandamus.  On February 28, 2018, this court granted an alternative writ of 
mandamus, established a schedule for the presentation of briefs and evidence, and 
ordered the city to submit the body-camera videos to the court under seal.  152 Ohio 
St.3d 1402, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 874.  The city complied with this directive, 
and the parties filed briefs and evidence.  The Enquirer also filed an unopposed 
motion for oral argument, which we granted.  154 Ohio St.3d 1507, 2019-Ohio-
470, 116 N.E.3d 1287.  Following oral argument, we ordered the city to submit 
supplemental evidence to show whether the responding officers were acting in a 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
capacity under which their identities could be exempted from disclosure.  155 Ohio 
St.3d 1465, 2019-Ohio-2012, 122 N.E.3d 1287.  With briefing now completed, we 
proceed with our decision. 
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 5} In its complaint, the Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus and alleged 
that “[t]o date, [the police department] has refused to provide access to the Body-
Cam Footage in any form.”  On December 1, 2017, 17 days after the complaint was 
filed, the city provided the body-camera footage to Pilcher, in the form of 19 videos.  
As it noted in its brief, the city redacted videos to obscure the faces of plainclothes 
officers who appear in the footage.  During oral argument, counsel for the Enquirer 
made clear that it was challenging the decision to obscure the faces, prompting 
counsel for the city to request the opportunity to submit additional evidence to 
justify the redactions.  In response to our request for supplemental evidence, the 
city submitted the affidavit of Cincinnati Assistant Police Chief Teresa Theetge, 
who attested that the plainclothes officers who appear in the footage operate in a 
covert capacity, both as surveillance and undercover officers, and that if the faces 
of those officers are disclosed, those officers will be less useful as covert units and 
subject to an increased risk of harm. 
A.  The Enquirer is not entitled to a writ of mandamus 
{¶ 6} Mandamus is the appropriate remedy by which to compel compliance 
with Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  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.  Exceptions to disclosure under the act are 
strictly construed against the records custodian, who has the burden to establish the 
applicability of any claimed exception from disclosure.  State ex rel. Cincinnati 
Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, 
¶ 10. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 7} A “public record,” under the Public Records Act, does not include 
“[r]ecords the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.”  R.C. 
149.43(A)(1)(v).  Constitutional privacy rights are “state or federal law” for 
purposes of the Public Records Act.  See State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 
279, 282, 707 N.E.2d 931 (1999) (personal information in police officers’ personnel 
files is exempt from disclosure). 
{¶ 8} Police officers “have a fundamental constitutional interest in 
preventing the release of private information when disclosure would create a 
substantial risk of bodily harm, and possibly even death, ‘from a perceived likely 
threat.’ ”  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, 132 Ohio St.3d 68, 2012-Ohio-
1999, 969 N.E.2d 243, ¶ 14, quoting Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 
(6th Cir.1998).  In Craig, this court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment that 
the city did not have to disclose the names and identifying information of officers 
wounded in a shootout, because the evidence established that disclosure would 
create just such a threat of harm.  Id. at ¶ 22-23.  See also State ex rel. Cincinnati 
Enquirer v. Streicher, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100820, 2011-Ohio-4498, ¶ 32-33 
(noting that police officers’ interest in protecting themselves and their families from 
bodily harm outweighs the public interest in uncovering the identity of officers 
involved in certain incidents). 
{¶ 9} The Theetge affidavit establishes that the officers who appear in the 
videos operate in a covert capacity and that they might therefore be at risk of harm 
if their identities are publicly disclosed.  A risk of harm need not be immediate or 
specifically identifiable in order to prevent disclosure.  State ex rel. McCleary v. 
Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 365, 371-372, 725 N.E.2d 1144 (2000) (disclosure of photo-
identification-program database would create general risk of harm to children who 
use municipal recreation facilities). 
{¶ 10} The Enquirer did not file a response to Theetge’s affidavit.  It did not 
challenge the assertion that the officers would be at risk if their identities became 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
known, and it also did not argue that revealing the officers’ faces would not disclose 
their identities.  The city’s evidence is uncontradicted. 
{¶ 11} We accordingly conclude that the redactions were proper.  Because 
the city has otherwise provided the body-camera footage to Pilcher, we deny the 
Enquirer’s request for a writ of mandamus as moot. 
B.  The Enquirer is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs 
{¶ 12} Under prior iterations of the Public Records Act, the issuance of a 
writ of mandamus was a prerequisite for an award of attorney fees.  State ex rel. 
DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 138 Ohio St.3d 367, 2014-Ohio-538, 7 N.E.3d 1136, ¶ 18.  
In 2016, the General Assembly enacted Sub.S.B. No. 321, which amended R.C. 
149.43(C)(3)(b).  The Public Records Act now authorizes a court to award fees 
even when it has not granted a writ, so long as the court makes any one of three 
factual determinations.  Relevant to this case, fees may be awarded if the court finds 
that the public office or official responsible for the records “acted in bad faith when 
the office or person voluntarily made the public records available to the relator for 
the first time after the relator commenced the mandamus action, but before the court 
issued any order concluding whether or not” the records should have been 
produced.  R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii).  Furthermore, if the court finds that the public 
office or official responsible for the records acted in bad faith pursuant to R.C. 
149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii), “the court shall determine and award to the relator all court 
costs, which shall be construed as remedial and not punitive.”  R.C. 
149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii). 
{¶ 13} The city admits that five of the videos from the body cameras contain 
nothing of investigative value and should have been produced.  Because the 
withheld videos “show nothing more than police officers driving,” the city suggests 
that its failure to produce those videos proves its good faith because it was not 
acting to conceal something of public significance.  But that point cuts both ways: 
if those five videos were so plainly lacking in investigative value, then the city’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
failure to produce them suggests the possibility that the city never bothered to 
review any of the videos to see what they contained.  Thus, the claim that it acted 
in good faith is more dubious.  The city specifically denied the record request on 
November 2, 2017, claiming a CLEIRS exception.  This raises a question of 
whether the city even reviewed the videos before asserting that exception. 
{¶ 14} In opposing the request for attorney fees, the city asks the court to 
consider how time intensive it was to review videos from 19 body cameras.  But 
there is no evidence that the city ever undertook such a review, or that the pace of 
review had anything to do with the timing of the release of the videos.  In fact, the 
city’s explanation of events contradicts the suggestion that it undertook any inquiry 
to see whether portions of the videos could be released. 
{¶ 15} The city also suggests that it was justified in denying the Enquirer’s 
public-records request due to proceedings in a separate lawsuit.  The city submitted 
evidence that Crawley had filed an excessive-use-of-force complaint against the 
arresting officers with the Cincinnati Citizens Complaint Authority (“CCA”).  In 
response to that complaint, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters filed suit 
against the CCA to prevent it from conducting any hearings prior to completion of 
the criminal prosecutions.  State ex rel. Deters v. Citizens Complaint Auth., 
Hamilton C.P. No. A-1705604.  On October 30, 2017, Hamilton County Common 
Pleas Court Judge Steven Martin entered a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) 
enjoining CCA from conducting interviews.  The city submitted the affidavit of 
Kathleen Brackett, an employee in the Cincinnati Police Department’s Records 
Section, with its brief.  In that affidavit, Brackett stated that “[b]ecause the trial 
court granted the temporary restraining order to protect investigatory work product, 
[she] recommended that the Enquirer’s public record request be denied.” 
{¶ 16} This argument fails for two reasons.  First, this court ordered the 
parties to submit “any evidence they intend to present” no later than March 20, 
2018.  152 Ohio St.3d 1402, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 874.  But the city failed to 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
proffer the affidavit until May 29, 2018, more than two months after the court-
ordered deadline, and it did not seek leave of court to do so.  Second, Judge Martin’s 
TRO and Brackett’s affidavit do not help the city.  Brackett’s statement that she 
advised the city not to release the videos in the interest of “protect[ing] 
investigatory work product” merely begs the question why the city withheld all the 
videos, including those it now concedes had no investigatory relevance or value. 
{¶ 17} For these reasons, we conclude that the city did not act in good faith 
in voluntarily releasing the videos to the Enquirer for the first time after the 
Enquirer commenced the mandamus action but before this court issued an order 
concluding whether the records should have been produced.  We grant the 
Enquirer’s request for an award of reasonable attorney fees.  In addition, having 
found that the city did not act in good faith pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii), 
we grant the Enquirer’s request for court costs. 
{¶ 18} We will make a final determination of the amount of attorney fees 
upon the Enquirer’s filing of briefs and evidence detailing its attorney fees, 
including evidence establishing the actual hours expended, the reasonableness of 
the hours, and the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by the attorneys.  See 
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13, 2018-Ohio-5108, 
123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 25-26.  The city may file a response to the Enquirer’s application.  
Id. at ¶ 25. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 19} Because the city provided the requested body-camera videos, and 
because the city’s redactions were proper, we deny the Enquirer’s request for a writ 
of mandamus.  However, because the city did not act in good faith when it 
voluntarily released the videos to the Enquirer for the first time after the Enquirer 
commenced the mandamus action but before this court issued any order concluding 
whether the records should have been produced, we grant the Enquirer’s request 
for reasonable attorney fees and costs. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P, John C. Greiner, and Darren W. Ford, for 
relator. 
 
Paula Boggs Muething, Cincinnati City Solicitor, Peter J. Stackpole, 
Deputy City Solicitor, and L. Drew Marksity, Assistant City Solicitor, for 
respondent. 
 
Faruki, Ireland, Cox, Rhinehart & Dusing, P.L.L., Erin E. Rhinehart, and 
Christopher C. Hollon, in support of relator for amicus curiae Ohio Coalition for 
Open Government. 
_________________