State ex. rel. Chatman v. Galion Police Dept.

2023 Ohio 4177, 229 N.E.3d 632

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 20, 2023
• Docket: 9-22-48
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex. rel. Chatman v. Galion Police Dept., 2023-Ohio-4177.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

STATE EX. REL. DAVID CHATMAN, CASE NO. 9-22-48 RELATOR,

v.

GALION POLICE DEPARTMENT, OPINION

RESPONDENT.

Original Action for Writ of Mandamus Marion County

Writ Granted in Part, Denied in Part

Date of Decision: November 20, 2023

APPEARANCES:

David L. Chatman, Relator

Phillip K. Hartmann and Jesse J. Shamp for Respondent Case No. 9-22-48

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} This matter comes on for determination of Relator’s complaint for a

writ of mandamus seeking the production of records under R.C. 149.43, statutory

damages, and court costs, Respondent’s answer to the complaint, and Relator’s

reply.

{¶2} Relator also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(C), which the Court hereby denies having found no good cause shown.

Background

{¶3} Relator, an inmate at North Central Correctional Complex, alleges that

he sent a written public records request via Certified Mail on June 17, 2022, to

Respondent, Galion Police Department, for six categories of records: (1) and (2)

copies of personnel files for two law enforcement officers; (3) copies of the Galion

Police Department’s standard operating procedure; (4) copies of the 2019 and 2021

annual department budgets; (5) copies of “any and all incident reports/non-criminal

reports” for Relator and his live-in-ex-girlfriend, who is the mother of the minor

victim in his criminal case; and (6) “any and all content” in Relator’s 2019 criminal

felony case file (Case No. 20-CRO-374).

{¶4} On September 15, 2022, Relator filed this original action alleging that

Respondent failed to respond to his records request and seeking a writ of mandamus

to compel Respondent to produce the documents under R.C. 149.43(C), in addition

to seeking statutory damages and court costs under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and R.C.

-2- Case No. 9-22-48

149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). The record indicates that Respondent was served a copy of the

complaint via certified mail, as evidenced by the return receipt signed on September

21, 2022. However, no response to the complaint was filed by Respondent.

{¶5} On December 2, 2022, after Respondent failed to file an answer, the

Court issued an alternative writ directing Respondent to submit a copy of the

requested alleged public records under seal for an in camera review by December

23, 2022, and a scheduling order for the parties to file their briefs. The Court’s

docket indicates that the clerk served Respondent with a copy of the alternative writ

the same day.

{¶6} Several months later, on May 19, 2023, Respondent filed an answer to

the Court’s December 2, 2022 alternative writ, conceding its failure to comply with

its statutory duty under R.C. 149.43 to promptly respond to Relator’s public records

request. Respondent also submitted a copy of the records responsive to Relator’s

record request for the Court’s in camera review.

{¶7} In its answer, Respondent acknowledged that Relator is entitled to

copies of the Galion Police Department’s standard operating procedure and the 2019

and 2021 annual department budgets under R.C. 149.43 (records 3 & 4), and stated

that it was working with the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to send

those records to Relator.

{¶8} However, Respondent maintains that Relator is not entitled to the other

requested records. Specifically, Respondent contends that in order to be entitled to

-3- Case No. 9-22-48

copies of the incident reports and criminal investigation records (records 5 & 6),

Relator must first receive a determination from the sentencing judge that the

information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a

justiciable claim. See R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Regarding the personnel files requested

by Relator (records 1 & 2), Respondent asserts that these are not public records and

therefore are not required to be produced under a R.C. 149.43(B) request.

{¶9} Relator filed a reply to Respondent’s answer arguing that the additional

approval requirement in R.C. 149.43(B)(8) does not apply to the records he

requested, and asserting that the personnel files are not subject to a public record

exemption.

Statutory Damages

{¶10} Considering Respondent’s concession that it failed to comply with its

obligation under R.C. 149.43(B), and with no evidence to the contrary, the Court

grants Relator’s claim for statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00. See R.C.

149.43(C)(2).

Mandamus Claim

{¶11} The award of statutory damages is separate from the Court’s

determination of whether Relator is entitled to a writ of mandamus because statutory

damages may be awarded based on the unreasonable amount of time the public

office had taken to provide the requested records. R.C. 149.43(C)(2); see State ex

rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Correction, --- Ohio St. 3d ---, 2023-

-4- Case No. 9-22-48

Ohio-1543, ¶ 15. Since the parties do not dispute that Relator is entitled records 3

& 4, and that these records have apparently already been sent to Relator, the only

remaining issue is whether Relator is entitled to the other records requested under

the public records act.

Incident Reports/Criminal Investigation Records

{¶12} The Court’s in camera review of records 5 and 6 reveal that these

documents include information primarily related to Relator’s conviction for rape in

2019. Because Relator is incarcerated, his request for these records is subject to R.C.

149.43(B)(8), which provides:

A public office or person responsible for public records is not required

to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal

conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record

concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * * unless the

request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose

of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record

under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence * * *, or

the judge’s successor in office, finds that the information sought in

the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a

justiciable claim of the person.

R.C. 149.43(B)(8).

-5- Case No. 9-22-48

{¶13} Thus, according to R.C. 149.43(B)(8), Relator was required to obtain

a finding by the sentencing judge that the records identified in his public-records

request were necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim. Until

obtaining that finding, he is not entitled to receive records related to his criminal

case. See State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2023-Ohio-1323, ¶ 26.

“ ‘[T]here is no duty to provide public records requested by an inmate unless’ the

inmate has complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8)”. Id. at ¶ 27, quoting McCain v.

Huffman, 151 Ohio St.3d 611, 2017-Ohio-9241, ¶ 12.

{¶14} Therefore, Respondent has no duty to provide records related to

Relator’s criminal proceedings. See State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic

Laboratory, 167 Ohio St.3d 193, 2021-Ohio-4487, ¶ 15. Because Relator has not

shown that he complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), the Court finds he has failed to

show by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to mandamus relief in this

regard.

Law Enforcement Personnel Files

Record 1: “The Complete Personnel File of Robert F. Burkey”

{¶15} The Court’s in camera review of record 1 pertaining to Robert Burkey

reveals that the personnel file contains a small amount of documents, all of which

include highly sensitive material identifying personal, family, and medical

information about the law enforcement officer. The Supreme Court of Ohio has

-6- Case No. 9-22-48

recognized that not all items in a personnel file may be considered public records.

State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells, 18 Ohio St.3d 382, 385 (1985).

{¶16} The Supreme Court of Ohio emphasized that “[a] ‘public record’ is

‘any record that is kept by any public office * * *.’ R.C. 149.43(A)(1). However, a

‘record’ is something that is ‘created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction

of any public office * * * which serves to document the organization, functions,

policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.’ R.C.

149.011(G). To the extent that any item contained in a personnel file is not a

‘record,’ i.e., does not serve to document the organization, etc., of the public office,

it is not a public record and need not be disclosed. To the extent that an item is not

a public record and is ‘personal information,’ as defined in R.C. 1347.01(E), a

public office ‘would be under an affirmative duty, pursuant to R.C. 1347.05(G), to

prevent its disclosure.’ ” State ex rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St. 3d 365, 367,

2000-Ohio-345, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Enright, 66 Ohio St.3d 186, 188

(1993).

{¶17} The Supreme Court further held that “[p]olice officers’ files that

contain the names of the officers’ children, spouses, parents, home addresses,

telephone numbers, beneficiaries, medical information, and the like should not be

available to a defendant who might use the information to achieve nefarious ends.

This information should be protected not only by the constitutional right of privacy,

but, also, we are persuaded that there must be a ‘good sense’ rule when such

-7- Case No. 9-22-48

information about a law enforcement officer is sought by a defendant in a criminal

case.” State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999); see also R.C.

149.43(A)(1)(p).

{¶18} Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the personnel file

pertaining to Robert Burkey is not a public record as defined by R.C. 149.011(G),

and is not subject to production by Respondent under R.C. 149.43.

Record 2: “The Complete Personnel File of Lt. Det. [Marc] Rodriguez”

{¶19} The Court’s in camera review of record 2 pertaining to Marc

Rodriguez’s personnel files reveals an entirely different category of documents than

the personnel file of Robert Burkey. The contents of the file almost exclusively

serve to document the functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other

activities of the office, and therefore meets the definition of a public record. R.C.

149.011(G).

{¶20} Respondent maintains that these items should generally be excluded

from public disclosure under a ‘good sense’ rule which, as previously discussed, is

applied when personal information about a law enforcement officer is sought by a

defendant in a criminal case. See State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 279, 281

(1999), citing Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (C.A.6, 1998) (holding that

officers have a fundamental constitutional interest in preventing release of personal

information contained in their personnel files where such disclosure creates a

substantial risk of serious bodily harm).

-8- Case No. 9-22-48

{¶21} However, many courts, including the Supreme Court of Ohio, have

not applied the concept of a “good sense” as broadly as advocated for by Respondent

in this instance. Rather, it is clear that these courts have narrowly construed Keller

to its facts and have held Keller stands for the limited proposition that information

of a personal nature, such as the names and addresses of an officer’s family members

are protected by the constitutional right of privacy, and absent a showing of some

substantial threat to personal security, disclosure of other information contained in

the personnel file does not encroach on the officer’s constitutional right to privacy.

State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Off., 133 Ohio St. 3d 139,

2012-Ohio-4246, ¶ 41 (“Keller simply reiterates the unremarkable proposition that

personnel and internal investigative records of police officers—aside from certain

personal information protected by the constitutional right of privacy—are public

records under R.C. 149.43 ‘because they have nothing to do with the crime or the

criminal case itself.’ ”).

{¶22} Accordingly, due to the nature of the documents, the Court concludes

that the majority of Marc Rodriguez’s personnel file is subject to public disclosure.

However, the Court finds the personnel file minimally references personal

information relating to Rodriguez’s family members, addresses, phone numbers,

and basic medical information which, as previously discussed, are not subject to

public disclosure. R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a),(p). This information is not a public record

-9- Case No. 9-22-48

and therefore must be redacted consistent with R.C. 149.43(A)(13) before

Respondent provides a copy of Rodriguez’s personnel file to Relator.

Court Costs

{¶23} Relator also seeks an award of court costs. Because the Court

concludes that Realtor is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent to

provide public records responsive to his request, an award of costs to Relator is

mandatory under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). State ex rel. Hicks v. Fraley, 166 Ohio

St.3d 141, 2021-Ohio-2724, ¶ 25.

Conclusion

{¶24} The Court finds that Relator has demonstrated by clear and convincing

evidence that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent to

produce records 3, 4, and record 2 in redacted form. For the reasons outlined by

the Court, Relator has not establish that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus to

compel Respondent to produce records 1, 5, and 6.

{¶25} Therefore, the complaint for writ of mandamus is granted, in part.

Respondent shall provide Relator with a copy of: Respondent’s current standard

operating procedure/policies and procedures; Respondent’s annual department

budget for years 2019 and 2021; and a copy of Marc Rodriguez’s personnel file with

personal information redacted in a manner consistent with R.C. 149.43(A)(13) and

the guidelines stated in this opinion. The Court denies the writ as to the remaining

-10- Case No. 9-22-48

records requested. The Court also grants Relator’s claims for statutory damages of

the maximum $1,000.00 and cost costs.

Writ granted in part and denied in part

MILLER, P.J., WILLAMOWSKI, J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

-11-