[Cite as Brandt v. Solon Police Dept., 2022-Ohio-3732.]

{¶1} The Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, provides that upon request, a public 

office “shall make copies of the requested public record available to the requester at cost 

and within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Ohio courts construe the 

Public Records Act liberally in favor of broad access, with any doubt resolved in favor of 

disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56, 2018-Ohio-5133, 123 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 12. R.C. 2743.75 provides 

“an expeditious and economical procedure” to resolve public records disputes in the Court 

of Claims. 

{¶2} On November 9, 2021, requester Patricia Brandt made a public records 

request to respondent Solon Police Department (Solon PD) for:

Police Report No. 21-00372

Investigative file for Police Report No. 21-00372

Videos and photos maintained as records for Police Report No. 21-00372

Victim statement(s) maintained as a record(s) for Police Report No. 21-

00372

Witness statements maintained as record(s) for Police Report No. 21-00372

List of evidence collected and maintained as records for Police Report No. 

2100372.

(Complaint, Exh. 1.) Solon PD responded the same day with a redacted copy of the first 

page of the Incident/Offense Report for Incident Number 21-00372. (Id., Exh. 3.) In 

response to a follow-up letter from Brandt (Id., Exh. 4), on November 24, 2021 Solon PD 

provided redacted copies of the first nine pages of the report along with explanations,

PATRICIA BRANDT

 Requester

 v.

SOLON POLICE DEPARTMENT

 Respondent

Case No. 2022-00299PQ

Special Master Jeff Clark

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

including legal authority, setting forth its explanation for the redactions. (Id., Exh 5.)

Solon PD did not provide any videos or photos. Solon PD advised that the file for Incident 

No. 21-00372 contained an additional 33 pages of Investigative Report Supplement

Narratives. (Id.)

{¶3} On April 5, 2022, Brandt filed her complaint pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 

alleging denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Brandt seeks

“[i]mmediate release of Incident/Offense Report Form No. 21-00372 in its entirety, or as 

determined by this Court,” and various sanctions. (Complaint at 19-20.) On June 13, 

2022, following unsuccessful mediation, Solon PD filed an answer (Response) and a 

motion to dismiss (MTD). On June 30, 2022, Solon PD filed its response to the court’s

order of June 14, 2022 (First Supp. Response) and has filed a complete and unredacted 

copy of the withheld records under seal (Sealed Records). On August 9, 2022, Solon PD 

filed a response to an order of July 27, 2022 (Second Supp. Response). On August 11, 

2022, Brandt filed a reply. On September 23, 2022, Solon PD filed a response to an order 

of September 16, 2022 (Third Supp. Response).

Burden of Proof

{¶4} The requester in an action under R.C. 2743.75 bears an overall burden to 

establish a public records violation by clear and convincing evidence. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 

2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.). The requester bears an initial

burden of production “to plead and prove facts showing that the requester sought an 

identifiable public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office or 

records custodian did not make the record available.” Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. 

Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 33.

{¶5} If a public office asserts an exception to the Public Records Act as the basis 

for withholding records, the burden shifts to the public office to establish its applicability:

Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, are 

strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and the custodian 

has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception. A custodian 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

does not meet this burden if it has not proven that the requested records fall 

squarely within the exception. 

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 

886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the syllabus; State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio 

Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987, 71 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 35

(application of specific investigatory work product exception to dash-cam video).

Motion to Dismiss

{¶6} To dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, it must appear beyond doubt the claimant can prove no set of facts warranting 

relief after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable 

inferences are made in claimant’s favor. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder,

76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996). As long as there is a set of facts 

consistent with the complaint that would allow the claimant to recover, dismissal for failure 

to state a claim is not proper. State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 138 Ohio St.3d 84, 2013-Ohio5477, 3 N.E.3d 1184, ¶ 10. 

{¶7} Solon PD does not dispute that Brandt reasonably identified the records she 

seeks but moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that, 1) Brandt’s claims are 

moot, and 2) all withheld records are exempt from release as specific investigatory work 

product under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) and (A)(2)(c). (MTD at 3-6.) On review, the Special 

Master finds that neither mootness nor comprehensive application of the claimed

exemption is conclusively shown on the face of the complaint. Moreover, as the matter is 

now fully briefed these grounds are subsumed in the arguments to deny the claim on the 

merits. It is therefore recommended the motion to dismiss be denied.

Suggestion of Mootness

{¶8} In an action to enforce R.C. 149.43(B), a public office may produce the 

requested records prior to the court’s decision, and thereby render the claim for 

production moot. State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950

N.E.2d 952, ¶ 18-22. Solon PD asserts that it provided Requester with the available public 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

records responsive to her requests and the justification for its redactions and withholdings

as investigatory work product. (MTD at 3.) Brandt agrees Solon PD provided nine pages

of redacted records. (Reply at 5.) However, she disputes the validity of some redactions

and asserts that Solon PD has failed to produce additional portions of the incident report 

that are not covered by the specific investigatory work product exception. (Id. at 7-10.)

The Special Master finds the claim for production of records partially moot to the extent 

that portions of the first nine pages of the incident report have been produced.

{¶9} Independent of the claim for production, Brandt’s claim of an unreasonable

fifteen-day delay between the request and production of the first nine pages of a plainly 

public initial incident report is not moot. (Complaint at ¶ 31, 44; Reply at 6-7.) “[A] separate

claim based on the untimeliness of the response persists unless copies of all required 

records were made available ‘within a reasonable period of time.’ R.C. 149.43(B)(1).”

State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110, 123 

N.E.3d 895, ¶ 19.

The Initial Incident Report and Contemporaneous Narratives, 

Interviews, and Incorporated or Attached Records Must Be Disclosed

{¶10} Solon PD does not dispute that the first nine pages of Report No. 21-00372

must be released as routine initial reporting of an incident. However, Solon PD denies

that three pages of contemporaneous responding officer narratives, and the video and 

photographic material incorporated in the initial report by reference, must be released.

Initial Incident Reports

Offense-and-incident reports are form reports in which the law enforcement 

officer completing the form enters information in the spaces provided. See, 

e.g., State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer (2001), 91 Ohio 

St.3d 54, 2001 Ohio 282, 741 N.E.2d 511 (referring to an “Ohio Uniform 

Incident Form”).1

1 The form is contained in the Ohio Uniform Incident Report (UIR) Training Manual (Aug. 2011), 

https://ocjs.ohio.gov/oibrs/links/forms/UIR_Training.pdf (Accessed Sept. 14, 2022.) The UIR is published

by the Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, Office of Criminal Justice Services and designed to capture crime data 

for the Ohio Incident-Based Reporting System and the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 13.

Offense and incident reports exist in a variety of paper and electronic formats adapted by

each law enforcement agency for its purposes. See, e.g., State ex rel. Miller v. Pinkney, 

149 Ohio St.3d 662, 2017-Ohio-1335, 77 N.E.3d 915, Appendix. 

{¶11} It is well-settled that “incident reports initiate criminal investigations but are 

not part of the investigation.” State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer, 91 

Ohio St.3d 54, 56, 741 N.E.2d 511 (2001). Where a deputy’s incident report attached 

statements of officers and other witnesses and referenced them in the narrative used to 

describe events, Maurer at 54, “[h]e consequently incorporated them in a public record.”

Id. at 56. The Court concluded, “We hold that this report, including the typed narrative 

statements, is not a confidential law enforcement investigatory record.” Id. “However, 

nothing in the Maurer decision requires that a narrative witness statement incorporated 

by reference in an incident report must be physically attached to the incident report before 

it takes on the cloak of a public record.” State ex rel. WBNS 10 TV v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s

Office, 151 Ohio App.3d 437, 2003-Ohio-409, 784 N.E.2d 207, ¶ 21.

{¶12} Solon PD’s withholding of three pages of contemporaneous responding 

officer narratives closely resembles the facts in State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers, Slip Opinion 

No. 2022-Ohio-1915, where the Supreme Court found it necessary to

address the issue whether an offense-and-incident report, which initiates a 

police investigation and is a public record under Ohio’s Public Records Act, 

R.C. 149.43, is limited to the form that police officers fill out in order to report 

the incident or whether it also includes contemporaneous reports created 

by the investigating officers that document the officers’ observations and 

the statements of witnesses at the scene.

(Id. at ¶ 1.) The Court first reiterated:

Our case law provides two bases for determining whether documents 

qualify as part of the public-record incident report. The first is whether the 

document constitutes a regular incident-report form on which officers have 

filled in blanks with information. See Lanham, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-

Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 13. The second is whether the information 

provided initiates the investigation, Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d at 56-57, 741 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

N.E.2d 511, as opposed to constituting work product generated after the

investigation is under way.

Id. at ¶ 40. Under the heading “Some supplement narratives are public records,” the Court 

reasoned that the timing and nature of any “narrative derived directly from the party 

reporting the facts of the at-issue offense or incident to the Department,” as well as 

“responding officer’s observations and witness statements” taken the same day, show 

that the “information initiates the investigation” and 

properly constitutes part of the public record incident report, even though 

the officer elected to label that information as a “supplement” narrative 

rather than an “initial narrative.”

Id. at 42-44. The Court summarized:

We hold that when a police department maintains both incident-report forms 

and investigatory work product as part of the same overall investigatory 

record, officers’ reports that contain their observations at the time that they 

are responding to an incident, along with initial witness statements taken at 

the time of the incident or immediately thereafter, are incident-report 

information that is a public record and may not be withheld from disclosure 

as “specific investigatory work product” under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). To use 

the terminology of this opinion, supplement narratives that contain incident 

information are part of the public-record incident report, even though officers 

have neither included that information on the incident-report form nor 

incorporated it into the “initial narrative.”

(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 45. In the context of sexual assaults, the Court treated the 

“initial” phase of incident reporting as commencing upon the first victim or witness contact 

with the police department, Id. at ¶ 49, 50, 96, 97, 100, even if that first contact was made 

years after the alleged incident. Id. at ¶ 49, 96.

{¶13} Notably absent as a factor is the duty assignment or rank of the officer

gathering the initial information. Otherwise, a law enforcement agency could thwart 

disclosure of initial incident information by assigning a detective or ranking officer to every 

criminal matter before an incident report is made. See Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. Withrow

(1986), 177 W. Va. 110, 117, 350 S.E.2d 738, fn. 5 (public body may not conceal its
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -7- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

otherwise public writings merely by having an attorney prepare them), cited with approval

in State ex rel. Findlay Publ. Co. v. Hancock County Bd. of Commrs., 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 

137-138, 684 N.E.2d 1222 (1997). The Meyers Court accordingly ordered disclosure of 

all supplement narratives containing factual incident information, including those noting

that detectives had already “opened an investigation into a possible sexual assault.” Id. 

at ¶ 49 and 50. In determining which supplement narratives contain incident information, 

the most important factor is timing—the initial observations by officers and 

the initial witness statements taken at the physical location close to the time 

that the incident occurred constitute incident information that may not be 

regarded as specific investigatory work produce, even when the information 

has not been incorporated into the incident-report form.

(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 47. The review must evaluate whether the “timing and nature 

of the content shows that the information initiates the investigation.” Id. at ¶ 44, 47. The

Court also disregarded agency titling, resolving the status of each narrative based on “the 

timing and nature of the content * * *, even though the officer elected to label that 

information as a ‘supplement’ narrative rather than an ‘initial’ narrative.” Id. at ¶ 44.

{¶14} Supplement narratives generated days after the initial incident report are not 

part of that public record if they neither contain information included in the report form nor 

supply information that “initiated the investigation.” Id. at ¶ 41. The Court could not draw 

a bright line defining when the investigation phase has been initiated or is under way.

However, the burden is on the law enforcement agency to prove that any withheld incident 

record falls squarely within the full case law definition of specific investigatory work 

product, and the exception is strictly construed against the agency. Enquirer v. ODPS,

148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987, 71 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 35.

Incident/Offense Report No. 21-00372

{¶15} Solon PD officers utilized a departmental fill-in-the-blanks form to initiate the 

investigation of the incident in this case. The first page is titled Incident/Offense Report

No. 21-00372 and shows a “Report Date/Time” of Monday 03/08/2021 at 18:22:0. Review 

of the report in camera shows that the three pages immediately following page nine were 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -8- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

authored by the initially assigned officers and were completed on 03/08/2021 or reviewed

taped victim information the next day.

2 All three pages reflect initial factual information 

received from the victim on March 8, 2021. 

{¶16} The victim came to the Solon PD on March 8, 2021 to report a sexual

offense. (Sealed Records/BATES STAMPED/Solon PD Records–In Camera Inspection–

1-399, p. 10.) Before interviewing her, Ptl. Joseph R. Randazzo spoke with a detective

who directed him to get the details of what happened and report back to her. Randazzo 

brought the victim and her mother into an interview room and recorded the ensuing 

interview. At minute 9:00 of the interview video Randazzo advised the victim a detective 

would now meet with her and left the room. (Sealed Records/Attachments/[victim’s 

name]_Interview 1.) Ten minutes later Det. Linda Castro entered the room and continued 

the interview. (Id.) Castro advised the victim “that she would be contacted for a longer 

interview and that officers would be only collecting initial information at this time.”

(Emphasis added.) (Sealed Records/BATES STAMPED/Solon PD Records–In Camera 

Inspection–1-399, at p. 11.) Randazzo entered information received from the victim into 

the first ten pages of the incident report and the footer on the tenth page of the report is 

dated 03/08/2021 at 18:22:0. (Id. at p. 1-10.) Castro entered information received from

the victim into pages eleven and twelve. The first four paragraphs of page eleven describe 

her portion of the victim interview and the remaining text describes her March 9, 2021 

review of the recorded interview. The footers on pages eleven and twelve of the report 

are dated 03/09/2021 at 15:34:4. (Id. at p. 11-12.)

{¶17} Notably, the initial Narrative field at the bottom of the first page of the report 

form as released to Brandt contains only the words “NOT FOR PUBLIC.” (Complaint at 

28.) Brandt assumed this was an indication of that the narrative text had been redacted

(Reply at 9) but review in camera shows only the same words in this field - no narrative 

2

In addition to the Report Date/Time shown at the top of page 1, and the Date of Contact reported 

in the Persons Involved fields, note the Date in the reporting officer line at the bottom of form pages. (Third 

Supp. Response at 2); UIR Manual at 45.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -9- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

text was ever entered in the field. Instead, Solon PD accomplished the same result by

preemptively rerouting that text to a separate, withheld page – Randazzo’s initial narrative 

on p. 10 of the report – and giving notice to the public that the initial narrative of the

incident was “NOT FOR” them.

3 Solon PD offers no support for the proposition that 

relocation of the initial incident narrative somehow makes it “investigatory.”

{¶18} Pages two through seven are titled Persons Involved with Incident and 

contain identification, contact, and relation information. Pages eight and nine are titled 

Property Involved with Incident and refer to three items: 1) a video surveillance recording, 

2) unspecified clothing from victim, and 3) the victim’s shirt. Page ten, completed by 

Randazzo, is titled Investigative Report, dated 03/08/2021 at 18:22:0, and contains 

Randazzo’s narrative of the victim’s arrival and interview at Solon PD up through and 

including his departure from the interview room. Pages eleven and twelve, completed by 

Det. Castro, are titled Investigative Report,4 dated 03/09/2021 at 15:34:4 and contain

Castro’s narrative of her continuation of the initial interview of the victim on 03/08/2021

and her review the next day of the previous day’s recording of the interview. 

{¶19} The Myers Court found similar initial information-gathering documents to be 

narratives of “incident information,” including an instance where a second supplement 

narrative was made by a second officer. Myers at ¶ 49, 52-53. Based on timing, content, 

and authorship, the Special Master finds that Sealed Records/BATES STAMPED/Solon 

PD Records–In Camera Inspection–1-399, p. 1-12 and all contemporaneous records 

referenced therein constitute the initial incident report for Incident No. 21-00372.

Videotaped Victim Interview

{¶20} In State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio 

St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987, 71 N.E.3d 258, ¶ 5-15, 45-50, a highway patrol dash-cam

recording made during a vehicle chase and arrest included audio and video of the officer’s 

3 Contrast this initial narrative export and withholding with Myers at ¶ 14-26, where the Chillicothe 

PD voluntarily disclosed report text labeled as initial narratives.

4 Despite this nominal title, the contents reflect incident information received from the victim.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -10- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

communication with other patrol personnel, investigation inquiries, and factual information 

from the suspect. The recording was made prior to creation of and was not attached to

the incident report. The Court found that only a 90-second portion of the recording where

the officer Mirandized and questioned the suspect was “investigatory” work product. 

Applying the reasoning of Maurer at 56, Myers at ¶ 45, and Enquirer v. ODPS, the video 

recording of the victim’s initial interview on 03/08/2021 was made prior to the creation of 

Incident/Offense Report No. 21-00372, was incorporated by reference therein at p. 10,

contains incident information that initiated the investigation, and is thus public record. The 

initial incident report likewise includes any photographic or other records documenting 

items gathered by Solon PD on March 8, 2022, e.g., as noted in the fourth paragraph of 

page SLNPD-INCAMERA-0000011 and pages 0000016 and 0000370 through 0000374, 

as noted in the Affidavit of Det. Castro. (Second Supp. Response, Exh. A.) (Third Supp. 

Response at 2-3.)

{¶21} However, the Public Records Act does not entitle a requester to access any

item of physical evidence. 2007 Ohio Op.Atty.Gen. No. 2007-034 (untested cigarette butt 

taken from a crime scene is not a “record”). Nor is subsequent forensic testing of initially 

gathered physical evidence, conducted months later and not initiating the investigation, 

swept into the initial incident report, e.g., matters referenced in SLNPD-INCAMERA0000042 and 0000044.

Records that are Investigatory Work Product 

{¶22} Pages thirteen through seventy-three are form pages titled Investigative 

Report, dated 03/10/2021 through 04/07/22, signed by Detectives Castro or Harvey.

These pages reflect later investigatory interviews with persons involved in the incident

and accounts of officer investigatory actions that took place days or more after the initial 

incident report and victim interview. Solon PD has asserted no additional public records 

exemptions for the contents of these records.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -11- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

{¶23} Brandt argues that all form report pages, and 14 written witness statements, 

“detained property,” police body camera footage, and all other items created or gathered

on dates after March 9, 2021, do not qualify as specific investigatory work product 

because “Solon police officers gathered [these] facts, information, and property withheld 

during while [sic] working in their official capacity as sworn peace officers * * * and then 

created an Initial Incident Report upon which they recorded their gathered facts, 

information, and property withheld and narrative summary.” (Reply at 7-8.) Brandt applies

obsolete reasoning from cases overruled by State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio 

St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994). These previous cases separated the law enforcement 

incident response into 1) “objective facts and observations [an investigator] has recorded”

that were public, and 2) his “deliberative and subjective analysis, his interpretation of the 

facts, his theory of the case, and his investigative plans” that were confidential work 

product. Id. at 431, 434. The Steckman Court rejected the fact/opinion dichotomy for a 

framework of initial incident report fact-gathering (public) vs. the “initiated” investigation

in anticipation of litigation (exempt), holding that 

information assembled by law enforcement officials in connection with a 

probable or pending criminal proceeding is, by the work product exception 

found in R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c), excepted from required release as said 

information is compiled in anticipation of litigation. The work product 

exception does not include ongoing routine offense and incident reports, 

including, but not limited to, records relating to a charge of driving while 

under the influence and records containing the results of intoxilyzer tests. 

Id. at 435.

{¶24} Ohio courts have clarified Steckman as to the materials that must be 

disclosed as “ongoing routine [initial] incident reports.” See State ex rel. Beacon Journal 

Publ. Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54, 741 N.E.2d 511 (2001); Narciso v. Powell Police 

Dept., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-01195PQ, 2018-Ohio-4590, ¶ 19-25 and cases cited therein. 

As detailed in these cases, the initial/routine/regular incident report does not include later 

investigatory notes, updates, and reports, even if they constitute “fact work product” rather 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -12- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

than “opinion work product.” Myers at ¶ 33, fn. 1. After the point where an investigation 

has been initiated, the subsequent work product of investigators, including the reporting 

officer, are presumptively “investigatory” work product. See State ex rel. Fields v. 

Cervenik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86889, 2006-Ohio-3969, ¶ 2-7; Gannet GP Media, Inc. 

v. Chillicothe Police Dept. Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00886, 2018-Ohio-1552, ¶ 14, 19. The 

Myers Court thus rejected the requester’s contention that all supplement narratives in the 

incident report form were ipso facto public-records, holding that “[i]nstead, the publicrecord status of the supplement narratives depends on the standards we have developed 

in the case law.” Myers at ¶ 36-39. Moreover, the mere fact that names of involved 

persons appear in the incident report (and are public record there) does not automatically 

incorporate the entire investigative supplement narrative or interview from which the 

names were obtained and backfilled into the report. See Id. at ¶ 41, fn. 2. (See Third 

Supp. Response at 3.)

{¶25} The bases for determining whether documents filed under seal in this case 

qualify as part of the public-record incident report are summarized in the following table:

Description Location Reason Not “Investigatory Work 

Product”

Ptl. Randazzo’s

narrative of victim’s 

arrival at PD and her 

account of alleged 

offense

Sealed Records/

BATES STAMPED/

Solon PD Records –

In Camera Inspection 

– 1- 399, p. 10

Part of a regular incident-report form.

Content derived directly from the 

party reporting facts to the PD.

Contemporaneous - made same 

date and time as first nine report 

pages.

Made by one of the first responding 

officers.

Information initiated the 

investigation.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -13- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Det. Castro’s 

narrative of 

continuation of 

victim’s account of 

alleged offense

Sealed Records/

BATES 

STAMPED/Solon PD 

Records – In Camera 

Inspection – 1- 399, p. 

11 (all text prior to “On 

March 9th, 2021”)

Part of a regular incident-report form.

Content derived directly from the 

party reporting facts to the PD.

Contemporaneous - made same 

date and time as first nine report 

pages.

Made by one of the first responding 

officers.

Information initiated the 

investigation.

Det. Castro’s 

narrative observations

on review of victim’s

03/08/2021 recorded 

account of alleged 

offense

Sealed Records/

BATES STAMPED/

Solon PD Records –

In Camera Inspection 

– 1- 399, p. 11-12 (all 

text following “On 

March 9th, 2021”)

Part of a regular incident-report form.

Content derived directly from the 

party reporting facts to the PD.

Information initiated the 

investigation.

Although signed on 03/09/2021, the 

text describes only interview activity 

on 03/08/2021 – i.e., a supplement 

narrative that contains “incident 

information.” Myers at ¶ 45.

03/08/21 video 

recording of 

Randazzo initial

victim interview

Attachments/[victim’s 

name]_Interview 1 

(Minutes 00:00 

through 18:50)

Content derived directly from the 

party reporting facts to the PD.

Recording made prior to the report.

Incorporated by reference in initial 

narrative (Report p. 10.)

Made by one of the first responding 

officers.

Information initiated the 

investigation.

03/08/21 video 

recording of Castro 

initial victim interview

Attachments/[victim’s 

name]_Interview 1 

Content derived directly from the 

party reporting facts to the PD.

Recording made prior to the report.
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -14- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Minutes 18:51 

through 37:34)

Incorporated by reference in initial 

narrative (Report p. 10.)

Made by one of the first responding 

officers.

Information initiated the 

investigation.

USB containing video 

surveillance from 

Swirl Wine Bar

No location provided 

by respondent

Referenced in regular incident-report

form. (Report p. 8.)

Any 03/08/2021 

photos of clothing 

from victim

Sealed Records/

BATES STAMPED/

Solon PD Records –

In Camera Inspection 

– 1-399, p. 370-374 

Referenced in regular incident-report

form. (Report p. 8.)

Placed into evidence on 03/08/2021. 

(Report at 11.)

Any 03/08/2021 

photos of victim’s shirt

Sealed Records/

BATES STAMPED/

Solon PD Records –

In Camera Inspection 

– p. 370-374

Referenced in regular incident-report

form. (Report p. 8.)

Placed into evidence on 03/08/2021. 

(Report at 11.)

Other records of 

incident information 

created or obtained 

on 03/08/2021.

As noted in fourth 

paragraph of page 

SLNPD-INCAMERA0000011, discussed 

at page 0000016 and 

Castro Aff. (Second 

Supp. Response, Exh. 

A.) (Third Supp. 

Response at 2-3.)

Contemporaneous - made same 

date and time as first nine report 

pages.

Information initiated the 

investigation.

{¶26} The Special Master finds after review in camera that form pages 13 through 

73 of the Incident/Offense report, and all notes, reports, evidence, and other non-form 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -15- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

report materials created and assembled after March 8, 2021 and not specifically 

addressed in this table did not initiate the investigation but constitute investigatory work 

product generated after the investigation was under way. Myers at ¶ 40 These later 

records are exempt from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) and (A)(2)(c) until the 

investigation has concluded by criminal trial or is otherwise closed. Id. at ¶ 32. 

{¶27} Finally, contrary to Brandt’s representation (Complaint at 2, ¶ 2) there is no 

evidence before the court that Solon PD dispatched officers to the Swirl Wine Bar on 

March 8, 2021 to respond to the person reporting harm. Clear and convincing written and 

video evidence shows that the person reporting harm came to the Solon PD building to 

file her report on March 8, 2021. Solon PD affirms that “[t]he first time Solon Police 

Department officers visited Swirl Wine Bar as part of their response to and investigation 

of the Incident is noted at the top of page SLNPD-INCAMERA-0000013,” which reflects 

a date later than March 8, 2022. (Third Supp. Response at 1-2.)

Social Security Numbers and Statutory “Personal Information”

{¶28} Social security numbers (SSNs) are subject to several public records 

exceptions. R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd) incorporates by reference R.C. 149.45(A)(1)(a), “an 

individual’s social security number,” as an exception applicable to all public records. 

R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd) further permits withholding of specified driver’s license, banking, 

and credit card information. SSNs are also generally subject to a constitutional privacy 

right. State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-

Ohio-662, 842 N.E.2d 508, ¶ 17-18; Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Akron, 2004-Ohio-6557 

at ¶ 55. Although not briefed by Solon PD, the Special Master recommends that the court 

permit the department to redact any SSNs and other statutory “personal information” from

records ordered disclosed.

{¶29} Solon PD has not asserted any public records exemption for the name of a 

victim contained in an initial incident report, nor is the Special Master aware of any that

would be applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, Brandt 
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -16- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

expressly agreed to redaction of the victim’s name from the report and narrative 

(Complaint at 30) and the court therefore need not consider that issue.

Timeliness

{¶30} “Routine offense and incident reports are subject to immediate release upon 

request.” (Emphasis added.) See State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 

639 N.E.2d 83 (1994), paragraph five of the syllabus. Solon PD claims it made its prelitigation response timely and with “good faith explanation, with legal authority, to justify 

the redactions and exemption of non-public records.” (Response at 2.) However, Solon 

did not produce the first nine pages of the regular initial incident report for fifteen days

and has not produced the contemporaneous narratives, interview video or other records 

referenced in the report for the last ten months and counting. No well-informed public 

office would reasonably believe that failure to release at least the first nine pages of the 

initial incident report immediately did not constitute failure to comply with long-standing 

obligations imposed by R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and the relevant case law. 

As the Supreme Court stated in Myers:

In Steckman, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, and in later cases, we 

stated that incident reports constitute public records and do not constitute 

confidential work product. Here, the city did not misunderstand Myers’s 

request; instead, it misunderstood its clearly established duties under R.C. 

149.43. Accordingly, the city violated its statutory obligation under R.C. 

149.43(B)(1) to promptly provide the incident-report forms to Myers, and 

Myers is entitled to statutory damages.

Myers at ¶ 61-62. The Supreme Court found that as little as three days from a request for 

an incident report to its disclosure constituted failure to promptly provide the report. Id. at 

¶ 27-28, 60. The Special Master accordingly finds that the fifteen-day delay in the instant 

case is a violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1). However, neither statutory damages nor attorney 

fees are available in this special statutory action under R.C. 2743.75.

Conclusion
Case No. 2022-00299PQ -17- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

{¶31} Upon consideration of the pleadings, attachments, and responsive records

filed under seal, the Special Master recommends the court issue an order granting the 

claim for production of records as detailed in the text and table above. The Special Master 

further recommends the court find that respondent may redact exempt items from its 

records as expressly provided in the report. It is the responsibility of respondent to release 

any additional records, properly redacted, in conformity with the findings and order issued 

by the court. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Telb, 50 Ohio Misc.2d 1, *11-12, 552 N.E.2d 

243, 251 (C.P.1990). The Special Master further recommends the court find that 

respondent failed to produce all public records in a reasonable period of time. The Special 

Master recommends the court order that requester is entitled to recover from respondent

the costs associated with this action, including the twenty-five-dollar filing fee. 

R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b). 

{¶32} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with 

the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this 

report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all 

grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption

of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a 

timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

 JEFF CLARK

 Special Master

Filed September 27, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/20/22