Title: State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Morrow Cty. Prosecutor's Office

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Morrow Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 105 Ohio St.3d 
172, 2005-Ohio-685.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. DISPATCH PRINTING COMPANY v. MORROW COUNTY 
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Morrow Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 
105 Ohio St.3d 172, 2005-Ohio-685.] 
Public records — Mandamus to compel Morrow County Prosecutor’s Office to 
provide copy of audiotape of 911 call — Writ granted, when — Attorney 
fees awarded, when. 
(No. 2005-0206 ─ Submitted February 17, 2005 ─ Decided February 24, 2005.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In January 2005, relator, the Dispatch Printing Company 
(“Dispatch”), requested that respondent Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney 
Charles S. Howland provide it with a copy of the 911 tape relating to the 
homicides of Diana Cooper and Cameron Bateman.  Howland permitted the 
Dispatch to listen to the 911 tape and offered to transcribe it, but refused to 
provide the Dispatch with a copy of the tape or allow the Dispatch to record it. 
{¶ 2} On January 28, 2005, the Dispatch filed this action under the Ohio 
Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, to compel respondents, Howland, the Morrow 
County Prosecutor’s office, and Morrow County, to immediately produce a copy 
of the requested 911 tape.  The Dispatch also moved for a peremptory writ and 
requested its costs and expenses, including attorney fees.  On February 16, 2005, 
respondents filed an answer admitting the pertinent facts.  In its motion, the 
Dispatch states, “Given the time sensitivity of this matter, it is requested that the 
relief be granted forthwith.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶ 3} This cause is now before us for our S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) 
determination. 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5):  Standard of Review 
{¶ 4} We must now determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or 
a peremptory writ is appropriate.  S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5); State ex rel. Consumers’ 
Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 301, 2004-Ohio-2894, 809 N.E.2d 
1146, ¶ 9.  The Dispatch requests a peremptory writ of mandamus.  “[I]f the 
pertinent facts are uncontroverted and it appears beyond doubt that [the relator] is 
entitled to the requested writ, we will issue a peremptory writ of mandamus.”  
State ex rel. Highlander v. Rudduck, 103 Ohio St.3d 370, 2004-Ohio-4952, 816 
N.E.2d 213, ¶ 8. 
Application of Standard to Mandamus Claim 
{¶ 5} The Dispatch is entitled to the requested writ.  “Nine-one-one tapes 
in general * * * are public records which are not exempt from disclosure and must 
be immediately released upon request.”  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. 
Hamilton Cty. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 379, 662 N.E.2d 334; see, also, State ex 
rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 54, 57, 741 
N.E.2d 511. 
{¶ 6} In Cincinnati Enquirer, we reasoned as follows in holding that all 
911 tapes are public records subject to immediate release upon request: 
{¶ 7} “Basic 911 systems * * * are systems ‘in which a caller provides 
information on the nature of and location of an emergency, and the personnel 
receiving the call must determine the appropriate emergency service provider to 
respond at that location.’  R.C. 4931.40(B).  * * * 911 operators simply compile 
information and do not investigate.  The 911 tapes are not made in order to 
preserve evidence for criminal prosecution.  Nine-one-one calls that are received 
* * * are always initiated by the callers.  * * *  
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 8} “From the foregoing, it is evident that 911 tapes are not prepared 
by attorneys or other law enforcement officials.  Instead, 911 calls are routinely 
recorded without any specific investigatory purpose in mind.  There is no 
expectation of privacy when a person makes a 911 call.  Instead, there is an 
expectation that the information provided will be recorded and disclosed to the 
public.  Moreover, because 911 calls generally precede offense or incident form 
reports completed by the police, they are even further removed from the initiation 
of the criminal investigation than the form reports themselves. 
{¶ 9} “The moment the tapes were made as a result of the calls (in these 
cases — and in all other 911 call cases) to the 911 number, the tapes became 
public records.  * * * Thus, any inquiry as to the release of records should have 
been immediately at an end, and the tapes should have been, and should now and 
henceforth always be, released. 
{¶ 10} “The particular content of the 911 tapes is irrelevant.  * * *  
{¶ 11} “In addition, the fact that the tapes in question subsequently came 
into the possession and/or control of a prosecutor, other law enforcement officials, 
or even the grand jury has no significance.  Once clothed with the public records 
cloak, the records cannot be defrocked of their status.”  Id., 75 Ohio St.3d at 377-
378, 662 N.E.2d 334. 
{¶ 12} Respondents argue that because they permitted the Dispatch to 
listen to the 911 tape and offered to transcribe the tape, they satisfied their duty 
under R.C. 149.43.  But respondents ignore R.C. 149.43(B)(2), which authorizes 
the person requesting the public record to choose to have the record duplicated in 
the same medium that the public office keeps it: 
{¶ 13} “If any person chooses to obtain a copy of a public record in 
accordance with division (B)(1) of this section, the public office or person 
responsible for the public record shall permit that person to choose to have the 
public record duplicated upon paper, upon the same medium upon which the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
public office or person responsible for the public record keeps it, or upon any 
other medium upon which the public office or person responsible for the public 
record determines that it reasonably can be duplicated as an integral part of the 
normal operations of the public office or person responsible for the public record.  
When the person seeking the copy makes a choice under this division, the public 
office or person responsible for the public record shall provide a copy of it in 
accordance with the choice made by the person seeking the copy.”  (Emphasis 
added.) 
{¶ 14} Because R.C. 149.43(B)(2) is unambiguous, we must apply it as 
written.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 559, 2004-Ohio-
5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, ¶ 23.  Respondents concede that they keep the requested 
record in audiotape format and that despite the Dispatch’s requesting a copy of 
the tape in this format, respondents refused to release copies of the tape and did 
not allow the Dispatch to copy it.  Under R.C. 149.43(B)(2), they had a duty to 
provide the Dispatch with a copy of the 911 tape in that same format. 
{¶ 15} Issuing a writ in this case is consistent with precedent.  See 
Cincinnati Enquirer and State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 103 Ohio St.3d 89, 2004-
Ohio-4354, 814 N.E.2d 55, ¶ 16-17.  In Slagle, we cited Cincinnati Enquirer and 
held that a person requesting a copy of an audiotape of a trial-court proceeding 
was not limited to a transcribed version of the tape: 
{¶ 16} “As to Slagle’s claim that he is entitled to have the State v. Call 
audiotape, he alleged in his complaint that he needed a copy of the audiotape of 
the suppression hearing in order to prepare for trial.  Although Judge Rogers 
agrees that the recording should be made available for reasonable inspection, he 
argues that Slagle should not be allowed to have the tape copied at cost under 
R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  Instead, he maintains that a party to the action is limited to a 
transcribed version of the tape, to be ordered from the court reporter for the fee 
fixed by the court. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 17} “We disagree with this position.  In State ex rel. Cincinnati 
Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 662 N.E.2d 334, we held 
that tapes of 911 calls were public records and were subject to release under the 
Ohio Public Records Act.  In this case, Slagle is not asking to have the tape 
transcribed or to have a transcript of the tape copied for him—he is only 
requesting a copy of the audiotape.  Under these circumstances, he is entitled to 
the copy at cost.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 18} Similarly, the Dispatch is entitled to a copy of the 911 tape at cost.  
Moreover, because 911 tapes “must be immediately released upon request,” we 
grant an immediate peremptory writ.  Cincinnati Enquirer, 75 Ohio St.3d at 379, 
662 N.E.2d 334. 
Attorney Fees 
{¶ 19} The Dispatch is also entitled to attorney fees.  It has established a 
sufficient public benefit, and respondents failed to comply with the records 
requests for invalid reasons.  Cincinnati Enquirer, 75  Ohio St.3d at 379, 662 
N.E.2d 334.  We order the Dispatch’s counsel to submit a bill and documentation 
of evidence in support of its request for attorney fees, in accordance with the 
guidelines in DR 2-106. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 20} I concur in the decision of the majority.  The law is clear.  
However, as I wrote in State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. (1996), 
75 Ohio St.3d 374, 662 N.E.2d 334, the General Assembly should consider 
changing the law.  Id at 380-381, 662 N.E.2d 334 (Pfeifer, J., concurring).  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
public’s right to scrutinize the workings of the government should be balanced 
against an individual citizen’s right to privacy.  A person should be able to 
summon the help of police officers or firefighters without having his plea 
broadcast on the evening news.  A transcript of a 911 call would convey the 
necessary information without transforming a personal tragedy into a public 
spectacle. 
__________________ 
 
Zeiger, Tigges, Little & Lindsmith, L.L.P., John W. Zeiger, and Marion H. 
Little Jr., for relator. 
 
Charles S. Howland, Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney, for 
respondents. 
____________________