Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Dayton
Decision Date | 11 February 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75-343,75-343 |
Citation | 341 N.E.2d 576,74 O.O.2d 209,45 Ohio St.2d 107 |
Parties | , 74 O.O.2d 209 DAYTON NEWSPAPERS, INC., d. b. a. The Dayton Daily News, Appellant, v. CITY OF DAYTON et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A record is 'required to be kept' by a governmental unit, within the meaning of R.C. 149.43, where the unit's keeping of such record is necessary to the unit's execution of its duties and responsibilities.
Police officers assigned to duty as jailers of the Dayton city jail maintain a daily 'Jail Register,' or log, of all arrests made by the department of police. The following entries are made in the log: 'Arrest Number,' 'Name of Prisoner,' 'Charge' (such as 'drunk,' 'petit theft'), 'Date,' 'Time,' and 'Disposition.'
In July or August 1972, Dayton Newspapers, Inc., d.b.a. The Dayton Daily News, appellant herein, requested the Dayton chief of police to consider the log a 'public record' so that it could be made available to the media. The chief refused to so divulge the contents of the log to the newspaper, and this injunction action ensued.
The newspaper's complaint alleged that the log is a public record required to be kept by the city, and that access to the log is therefore authorized by R.C. 149.43, which reads:
'As used in this section, 'public record' means any record required to be kept by any governmental unit, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, except records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations, adoption, probation, and parole proceedings, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.
Upon the city's motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Civ.R. 12(B)(6)), the Court of Common Pleas held that the log was not a 'public record' and entered judgment of dismissal. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and we granted the newspaper's motion to certify the record.
Estabrook, Finn & McKee, Robert P. Bartlett, Jr., and Thomas L. Czechowski, Dayton, for appellant.
James W. Drake, City Atty., and Edward B. Neuman, Dayton, for appellees.
Stanley K. Laughlin, Jr., Columbus, for other interested parties.
Speaking for a unanimous court in State ex rel. White v. Cleveland (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 37, 40, 295 N.E.2d 665, 668, Justice Corrigan states '* * * that R.C. 149.43 establishes a public right to the inspection and copying of public records and imposes upon municipal corporations the mandatory duty to permit same.' The Dayton jail log is certainly a 'record.' If it is 'required to be kept' by the city, appellees must grant access to appellant because the log does not come within any of the exceptions set forth in R.C. 149.43.
This court has not directly considered the 'required to be kept' element of R.C. 149.43. That element is ambiguous, and the reason for its insertion in the statute is not readily apparent. Appellees urge that we construe it to mean required by statute (or at least, by the official policy of a unit of government) to be kept. We would be more readily inclined to follow appellees' argument if the statute stated 'required by law to be kept.' Cf. State ex rel. Grosser v. Boy (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 498, 330 N.E.2d 442.
On the other hand, appellant would have the statutory phrase describe any record which but for its keeping the governmental unit could not carry out its duties and responsibilities that the raison d'etre of such record is to assure the proper functioning of the unit. We accept the interpretation suggested by appellant, and, in so doing, we reject the holdings of the courts below that the Dayton jail log is not a 'public record' subject to disclosure.
Prior to the enactment of R.C. 149.43 in 1963 (130 Ohio Laws 155), this court, in State ex rel. Patterson v. Ayers (1960), 171 Ohio St. 369, 171 N.E.2d 508, affirmed the issuance of a writ of mandamus to allow inspection of Bureau of Motor Vehicles records. Although the statute therein declared that all records of the bureau were 'public records,' we find instructive the approach taken by the court on the question of access. Judge Zimmerman, at page 371, 171 N.E.2d at page 509, quoted with approval the following passage from Ohio Jurisprudence:
'The rule in Ohio is that public records are the people's records, and that the officials in whose custody they happen to be are merely trustees for the people; therefore anyone may inspect such records at any time, subject only to the limitation that such inspection does not endanger the safety of the record, or unreasonably interfere with the discharge of the duties of the officer having custody of the same.' And then he stated, at page 372, 171 N.E.2d at page 510:
(Emphasis sic.)
See, also, State ex rel. Louisville Title Ins. Co. v. Brewer (1946), 147 Ohio St. 161, 164, 70 N.E.2d 265, which involved a similar mandamus action wherein a title research company requested access to a special card index for land records kept by the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County. (The writ was denied, but the court failed to indicate which of numerous valid grounds were determinative in refusing relief.)
On the basis of Ayers, supra (171 Ohio St. 369, 171 N.E.2d 508), we believe that doubt should be resolved in favor of disclosure of records * held by governmental units. Aside from the exceptions mentioned in R.C. 149.43, records should be available to the public unless the custodian of such records can show a legal prohibition to disclosure. Cf. R.C. 121.22(A), as amended November 28, 1975.
The decision to allow access to governmental records should not rest solely with the custodian. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Sheridan
...times, it was held that doubt should be resolved in favor of disclosure of records held by governmental units, in Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Dayton (1976) 45 Ohio St 2d 107, 74 Ohio Ops 2d 209, 341 NE2d 576. The court said that, aside from the exceptions to disclosure mentioned in the statu......
-
State ex rel. Dann v. Taft
...[State ex rel. Strothers v.] Wertheim [ (1997) ], 80 Ohio St.3d [155] at 157, 684 N.E.2d 1239; Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 109, 74 O.O.2d 209, 341 N.E.2d 576." {¶ 104} This court in the past has emphasized that underlying the Public Records Act is the "`fund......
-
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cnty. Coroner's Office
...and * * * the officials in whose custody they happen to be are merely trustees for the people." ’ " Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Dayton , 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 109, 341 N.E.2d 576 (1976), quoting State ex rel. Patterson v. Ayers , 171 Ohio St. 369, 371, 171 N.E.2d 508 (1960), quoting 35 Ohio Jur......
-
Kish v. Akron
...(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 623, 640 N.E.2d 174; Wertheim, 80 Ohio St.3d at 157, 684 N.E.2d 1239; Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 109, 74 O.O.2d 209, 341 N.E.2d 576. {¶ 18} In recognition that the right of access to government records is a hollow one if records a......