Title: State ex rel. Dussell v. Lakewood Police Dept.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Dussell v. Lakewood Police Dept., 99 Ohio St.3d 299, 2003-Ohio-3652.] 
 
 
[THE STATE EX REL.] DUSSELL, APPELLANT, v. LAKEWOOD POLICE 
DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Dussell v. Lakewood Police Dept., 99 Ohio St.3d 299, 
2003-Ohio-3652.] 
Criminal law — Mandamus sought to compel Lakewood Police Department to 
remove from its records any reference to relator as a sex offender prior 
to his arrest for rape in October 1990 — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2003-0052 — Submitted May 13, 2003 — Decided July 23, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 81193, 2002-Ohio-
6644. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1989, appellant, Dennis Dussell, was acquitted of sexually 
assaulting a three-year-old girl.  On October 6, 1990, appellee, Lakewood Police 
Department, began a criminal investigation after receiving a report that a woman 
had been kidnapped and repeatedly raped.  On October 7, Lakewood officers 
showed the victim a book of mug shots, and she identified Dussell as her 
assailant.  Dussell was subsequently implicated in another rape and an attempted 
rape. 
{¶2} 
On October 25, 1990, a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted 
Dussell on 24 counts of rape, felonious assault, kidnapping, abduction, gross 
sexual imposition, felonious sexual penetration, and having a weapon while under 
a disability.  In 1991, Dussell was convicted of 15 of the charges and sentenced to 
63 to 98 years in prison. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On April 22, 2002, Dussell filed a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus in the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals.  Dussell sought to compel 
Lakewood to remove from its records any reference to him as a sex offender prior 
to his arrest for rape in October 1990.  According to Dussell, Lakewood had 
erroneously classified him as a sex offender by placing him into its data base and 
mug shot books as a “known sexual offender” based on the charges that Dussell 
was acquitted of in 1989.  Because of his 1991 convictions of various sexual 
offenses, Dussell claimed that Lakewood’s erroneous classification will cause 
prison officials to wrongfully consider him a repeat sex offender as opposed to a 
first-time offender.  According to Dussell, being considered a repeat sex offender 
by prison officials will subject him to additional, unwarranted institutional 
controls and adversely affect his parole eligibility. 
{¶4} 
On December 5, 2002, the court of appeals granted Lakewood’s 
motion for summary judgment, denied Dussell’s motion for summary judgment, 
and denied his application for a writ of mandamus. 
{¶5} 
This matter is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶6} 
Dussell contends that the court of appeals erred in granting 
Lakewood’s motion for summary judgment and denying his requested writ of 
mandamus.  Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be 
granted, it must be determined that (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact 
remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but 
one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the 
nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.  State ex rel. 
Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 190, 191, 672 N.E.2d 
654.  Dussell contends that statutory and constitutional authority requires that 
Lakewood correct its records by removing any reference to him as a sex offender 
January Term, 2003 
3 
prior to October 1990.  We find Dussell’s claim to be meritless for the following 
reasons. 
{¶7} 
First, Dussell has not proven that Lakewood classified him as a sex 
offender.  In the court of appeals, Lakewood moved for summary judgment on the 
ground that it had not classified Dussell as a sex offender.  Uncontradicted 
evidence submitted by Lakewood in support of its summary judgment motion 
refutes Dussell’s assertion that Lakewood classified him as a sexual offender prior 
to charging him with rape in October 1990.  The chief of the Lakewood Police 
Department declares that Lakewood does not have any registration or 
classification requirements for sex offenders similar to those in R.C. Chapter 2950 
and that its records contain no reference to Dussell as a sex offender and no 
photographs of Dussell related to any 1989 sex offenses. 
{¶8} 
In contrast, Dussell’s claim rests on an October 1990 affidavit for a 
warrant to search Dussell’s apartment.  The affidavit indicated that Dussell was 
identified as the perpetrator of the October 1990 rape and kidnapping when his 
victim picked him out of a group of “photographs of sex offenders.”  Contrary to 
Dussell’s assertions, this reference does not equate to a sex-offender classification 
within the meaning of former R.C. 2950.01.  Furthermore, no credible evidence in 
the record supports Dussell’s allegation that his parole officer registered him in 
August 1990 as a sex offender.  In sum, Dussell has not set forth any specific facts 
or evidence that contradicts Lakewood’s evidence.  Thus, the court of appeals did 
not err in granting Lakewood’s motion for summary judgment. 
{¶9} 
Second, Dussell is not being deprived of life, liberty, or property as 
a result of the alleged erroneous classification.  Dussell has not shown that prison 
officials relied upon any erroneous sex-offender classification from Lakewood, or 
elsewhere, to his detriment.  Thus, he cannot invoke the Due Process Clause in 
order to have Lakewood’s files modified.  See State ex rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Adult Probation Dept. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 659, 646 N.E.2d 1113; State ex 
rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 125-126, 630 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶10} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Dennis Dussell, pro se. 
 
Kevin M. Spellacy, Lakewood Director of Law, and Jennifer L. Mladek, 
Assistant Director of Law, for appellee. 
__________________