Title: State ex rel. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak

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. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1854.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1854 
THE STATE EX REL. SCHIFFBAUER v. BANASZAK ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak, Slip Opinion No. 2015-
Ohio-1854.] 
Mandamus—Public records—A private college or university’s police department 
is a public office for purposes of R.C. 149.43—Writ granted. 
(No. 2014-0244—Submitted September 23, 2014—Decided May 21, 2015.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This mandamus action asks us to determine whether the Otterbein 
University police department is a public office for purposes of R.C. 149.43, 
Ohio’s Public Records Act.  Relator, Anna Schiffbauer, a news editor for a 
campus publication, requested records documenting the department’s exercise of 
a government function. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Because its officers are sworn, state-certified police officers who 
exercise plenary police power, we hold that the Otterbein police department is a 
public office.  Therefore, the department can be compelled to produce public 
records.  We issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering respondent Larry 
Banaszak, the chief of the Otterbein police department, to produce the requested 
records. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} According to the complaint, Otterbein360.com is a student-run 
media website that primarily covers campus news and events for Otterbein 
University’s campus in Westerville, Ohio.  It is the online version of Tan & 
Cardinal, a student newspaper, which, as of the fall of 2013, is no longer printed.  
Also according to the complaint, Schiffbauer is, or at least was in February 2014, 
a news editor for Otterbein360.com.1   
{¶ 4} On January 16, 2014, Schiffbauer mailed a letter to Banaszak 
requesting criminal reports of persons (both students and nonstudents) whose 
cases had been referred (presumably by the department) to the Westerville 
Mayor’s Court.  On January 22, 2014, Schiffbauer received an e-mail from 
respondent Robert Gatti, Otterbein’s vice president and dean for student affairs, 
denying the records request.  Gatti also sent a denial letter through the mail, and 
Schiffbauer received it on February 4, 2014.  The letter stated, “[A]s a private 
university, Otterbein believes we are not subject to the Public Records [Act] and 
therefore do not make our records public.” 
{¶ 5} Schiffbauer filed this action in mandamus on February 13, 2014.  
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, and Schiffbauer filed a memorandum in 
opposition.  The Ohio attorney general filed a motion for leave to file a 
                                          
 
1 Banaszak and Robert Gatti deny in their answer that Schiffbauer is currently an editor at 
Otterbein360.com.  However, under Civ.R. 25(C), she may continue as the relator absent a motion 
to substitute.  
January Term, 2015 
 
3
memorandum in opposition as an amicus curiae together with his proposed 
memorandum supporting Schiffbauer.  We granted his motion on October 8, 
2014. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 6} Under the Public Records Act, the term “public record” is defined as 
“records kept by any public office.”  R.C. 149.43(A)(1).  As used in R.C. Chapter 
149, the term “records” includes “any document * * * created by * * * any public 
office * * *, which serves to document the * * * activities of the office,” R.C. 
149.011(G), and the term “public office” includes “any state agency, public 
institution, political subdivision, or other organized body, office, agency, 
institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any 
function of government,” R.C. 149.011(A).  The question here is whether the 
Otterbein police department is a public office.  If so, it must produce records that 
document police activities, such as the criminal reports requested by Schiffbauer. 
{¶ 7} A campus police department for a private college or university may 
be established only under the aegis of R.C. 1713.50(B),2 which provides, “The 
board of trustees of a private college or university may establish a campus police 
department and appoint members of the campus police department to act as police 
officers.”  The statute further provides that only those persons who have 
completed a training program approved by the Ohio peace officer training 
commission (“POTC”) may be appointed campus police officers:  
 
[T]he board shall appoint as members of a campus police 
department only those persons who have successfully completed a 
training program approved by the Ohio peace officer training 
                                          
 
2 A state university may do the same under R.C. 3345.04.   This is not to say that all colleges and 
universities must have police departments.  Some choose instead to have campus security 
departments whose employees patrol the campus and call local police or other emergency services 
when appropriate, but are not sworn police officers.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
commission and have been certified as having done so or who have 
previously successfully completed a police officer basic training 
program certified by the commission and have been awarded a 
certificate to that effect by the commission. 
 
R.C. 1713.50(B). 
{¶ 8} A campus police officer has the same authority as a police officer of 
a municipality or as a county sheriff: 
 
Each member of a campus police department appointed 
under division (B) of this section is vested, while directly in the 
discharge of that member’s duties as a police officer, with the same 
powers and authority that are vested in a police officer of a 
municipal corporation or a county sheriff under Title XXIX of the 
Revised Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, including the 
same powers and authority relating to the operation of a public 
safety vehicle that are vested in a police officer of a municipal 
corporation or a county sheriff under Chapter 4511. of the Revised 
Code. 
 
R.C. 1713.50(C).  Campus police officers are explicitly vested with the same 
powers and authority that are vested in a police officer of a municipal corporation 
or a county sheriff: 
 
Each member of a campus police department appointed 
under division (B) of this section is vested, while directly in the 
discharge of that member’s duties as a police officer, with the same 
powers and authority that are vested in a police officer of a 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
municipal corporation or a county sheriff under Title XXIX of the 
Revised Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure * * *.  Except 
as otherwise provided in this division, members of a campus police 
department may exercise, concurrently with the law enforcement 
officers of the political subdivisions in which the private college or 
university is located, the powers and authority granted to them 
under this division in order to preserve the peace, protect persons 
and property, enforce the laws of this state, and enforce the 
ordinances and regulations of the political subdivisions in which 
the private college or university is located, but only on the property 
of the private college or university that employs them. 
 
R.C. 1713.50(C). 
{¶ 9} The campus police department in this case is an “organized body, 
office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the 
exercise of any function of government.”  R.C. 149.011(A).  It exercises a 
function of government, namely the basic police power of enforcing laws and 
maintaining the peace within its jurisdiction.  Its officers therefore have the power 
to search and confiscate property, to detain, search, and arrest persons, and to 
carry deadly weapons.  And it is an entity “established by the laws of this state,” 
because it exists only through R.C. 1713.50. 
{¶ 10} Respondents argue that the department is not a public office, 
because Otterbein University is not a public entity and the department is a 
subdivision of the university.  They point out that R.C. 1713.50 applies only to 
private colleges and universities and argue that under Schiffbauer’s reasoning, 
every corporation established under R.C. Title 17 would be a public office 
because corporations are established under statute and regulated by the state. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 11} However, we have held that a private corporation may be 
considered a public office for purposes of public records when it performs a 
governmental function.  “An entity need not be operated by the state or a political 
subdivision thereof to be a public office under R.C. 149.011(A).  The mere fact 
that [the entity] is a private, nonprofit corporation does not preclude it from being 
a public office.”  State ex rel. Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Elida Community 
Fire Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 578, 579, 697 N.E.2d 210 (1998), citing State ex rel. 
Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found., 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 260, 602 N.E.2d 
1159 (1992). 
{¶ 12} Here, the mere fact that Otterbein is a private institution does not 
preclude its police department from being a public office for purposes of the 
Public Records Act.  Otterbein’s police department is “performing a function that 
is historically a government function.”  Id. at 580. 
{¶ 13} Respondents make a lengthy argument regarding the application of 
State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-
4854, 854 N.E.2d 193, and its functional-equivalency test for determining 
whether a private entity is a public institution.  But Oriana House is inapposite 
because the department, by the plain language of R.C. 149.011(A) is a public 
office.  The department is created under a statute for the express purpose of 
engaging in one of the most fundamental functions of government: the 
enforcement of criminal laws, which includes power over citizens as necessary for 
that enforcement.  The Oriana House analysis is thus inapplicable. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 14} The Otterbein University police department is an “organized body, 
office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the 
exercise of any function of government.”  R.C. 149.011(A).  The department is 
established under R.C. 1713.50 for the purpose of exercising a core function of 
government: the enforcement of the criminal laws.  Because it meets the 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
definition of a public office for purposes of the Public Records Act, it must 
produce public records upon request.  Respondents do not argue that the requested 
documents fall under any exception to the Public Records Act. 
{¶ 15} We therefore issue a peremptory writ ordering Banaszak to produce 
the requested documents.  We also deny relator’s motion to strike respondents’ 
notice of additional authority. 
Writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 
KENNEDY, J., dissents, would grant an alternative writ, and would order 
briefing regarding respondent’s denial of paragraph one of petitioner’s complaint. 
_____________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 16} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 17} Otterbein University’s police department is subject to the Public 
Records Act if it is a “public office” pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A)(1).  R.C. 
149.011(A) defines “public office” to mean “any state agency, public institution, 
political subdivision, or other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity 
established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of 
government.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 18} As this court explained in State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 559, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, “ ‘[t]he preeminent canon of statutory 
interpretation requires us to “presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it 
means and means in a statute what it says there.” ’ ”  Id. at ¶ 27, quoting BedRoc 
Ltd., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183, 124 S.Ct. 1587, 158 L.Ed.2d 338 
(2004), quoting Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254, 112 
S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).  For this reason, when the meaning of a 
statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply it as written and may not rewrite it in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
the guise of statutory interpretation.  Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 
Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 20; Doe v. Marlington Local 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St.3d 12, 2009-Ohio-1360, 907 N.E.2d 706,  
¶ 29. 
{¶ 19} The majority here disturbs these settled principles in rewriting the 
statute and substituting the word “under” for the word “by.”   These words, 
however, are not synonymous.  In these circumstances, “under” means “in 
accordance with,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2487 (1993), 
while “by” means  “through the work or operation of,” id. at 307.  Thus, the 
phrases “under law” and “by law” are “not interchangeable. * * * Under law 
ordinarily means ‘in accordance with the law’ * * *.  * * * The phrase by law, in 
contrast, usu. means ‘by statute’ * * *.”  (Italics sic.)  Garner, A Dictionary of 
Modern Legal Usage 897 (2d Ed.1995).  See Bd. of Edn. of Union Free School 
Dist. No. 6 of Greenburgh v. Greenburgh, 277 N.Y. 193, 195, 13 N.E.2d 768 
(1933) (phrase “created by law” refers to the statutory law of the state).  The 
interpretation of the majority expands the definition of “public office” to include 
those entities created by private parties under law and equates them with those 
directly established by law. 
{¶ 20} The flaw in the majority’s analysis is that the university’s police 
department is not a “public office,” because it was not “established by the laws of 
this state for the exercise of any function of government.”  (Emphasis added.)  
R.C. 149.011(A).  It may be true, as the majority asserts, that the university’s 
police department “may be established only under the aegis of R.C. 1713.50(B),” 
majority opinion at ¶ 7, that it “exists only through R.C. 1713.50,” majority 
opinion at ¶ 13, and that it “is created under a statute,” majority opinion at ¶ 9.  
(Emphasis added.)  But the Otterbein University police department was not 
established by the laws of this state as R.C. 149.011(A) requires.  Rather, the 
university—not the General Assembly—established the police department in 
January Term, 2015 
 
9
accordance with R.C. 1713.50(B): “The board of trustees of a private college or 
university may establish a campus police department.”  This is the genesis of the 
campus police department at Otterbein University. 
{¶ 21} Thus, pursuant to the plain meaning of R.C. 149.011(A), the 
Otterbein University police department is not a “public office,” because it was not 
established by the General Assembly or by any other law of this state. 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to issue a writ 
of mandamus in this case compelling a private entity to produce records.  And it 
should be noted that these records are otherwise readily available from a public 
office that maintains public records, i.e., the Westerville Mayor’s Court. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
 
_____________________ 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., and John C. Greiner, for relator. 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Richard S. Lovering, Anne Marie Sferra, and 
Warren I. Grody, for respondents. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeffery W. Clark, Assistant 
Attorney General, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney 
General Michael DeWine. 
_____________________