Title: State ex rel. Russell v. Bican

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Russell v. Bican, 112 Ohio St.3d 559, 2007-Ohio-813.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. RUSSELL, APPELLANT, v. BICAN, CHIEF OF POLICE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Russell v. Bican, 112 Ohio St.3d 559, 2007-Ohio-813.] 
R.C. 149.43(B)(4) — Court of appeals judgment dismissing public-records 
mandamus case affirmed. 
(No. 2006-2202 ─ Submitted February 14, 2007 ─ Decided March 14, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 87451, 2006-Ohio-5735. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a public-records 
mandamus case because appellant, an inmate, failed to comply with R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) by not obtaining a finding by his sentencing judge that the 
information sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim.  We affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 2} In 2003, appellant, Robert W. Russell, was convicted of rape, 
attempted rape, felonious sexual penetration, gross sexual imposition, and 
kidnapping, and was sentenced to an indefinite term of ten years to life in prison. 
{¶ 3} Russell subsequently requested that appellee, North Royalton 
Police Chief Paul M. Bican, provide him with access to certain records, including 
offense and incident reports and records relating to certain people.  Chief Bican 
denied Russell’s requests because under R.C. 149.43(B)(4), he was not required 
to provide copies of the requested records until Russell obtained an order from his 
sentencing court finding that his request was necessary to support a justiciable 
claim. 
{¶ 4} In December 2005, Russell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 
to compel Chief Bican to provide him with copies of the requested records 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act.  Chief Bican filed a motion 
to dismiss the petition.  The court of appeals granted Chief Bican’s motion and 
dismissed Russell’s mandamus petition. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals did not err in dismissing the petition.  As we 
recently held in a case involving a similar public-records claim by Russell, 
Russell’s failure to first obtain a finding from his sentencing judge that the 
information sought in the requested records is necessary to support a justiciable 
claim precludes his entitlement to them under R.C. 149.43(B)(4): 
{¶ 6} “The language of the statute is broad and encompassing.  R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) clearly sets forth heightened requirements for inmates seeking 
public records.  The General Assembly’s broad language clearly includes offense 
and incident reports as documents that are subject to the additional requirement to 
be met by inmates seeking records concerning a criminal investigation or 
prosecution.  The General Assembly clearly evidenced a public-policy decision to 
restrict a convicted inmate’s unlimited access to public records in order to 
conserve law enforcement resources. 
{¶ 7} “* * * 
{¶ 8} “Because Russell failed to obtain a finding from the sentencing 
judge that ‘the information sought in the public record is necessary to support 
what appears to be a justiciable claim,’ he has failed to satisfy the statutory 
requirement for access to these records.  R.C. 149.43(B)(4).”  (Emphasis sic.)  
State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 
N.E.2d 966, ¶ 14-16. 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals dismissing Russell’s petition for a writ of mandamus.  Our holding 
renders moot Chief Bican’s motion to strike extraneous items from the appendix 
to Russell’s merit brief. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert W. Russell, pro se. 
 
Thomas P. O’Donnell, North Royalton Law Director, for appellee. 
 
Frank C. Brown Jr., pro se, urging reversal as amicus curiae. 
______________________