State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch, 83-597
| Citation | 12 Ohio St.3d 100,12 OBR 87,465 N.E.2d 458 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-597,83-597 |
| Parties | , 12 O.B.R. 87, 10 Media L. Rep. 2079 The STATE, ex rel. DAYTON NEWSPAPERS, INC., d.b.a. The Dayton Daily News, v. RAUCH, Coroner. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Robert P. Bartlett, Jr., and Thomas H. Pyper, Dayton, for relator.
Frederick E. Mong, Logan, for respondent.
R.C. 149.43(B) requires the disclosure of all public records. Respondent contends that autopsy reports on homicide victims are exempt from disclosure as confidential law enforcement records because their release would disclose "[s]pecific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product." R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c).
In support of this contention respondent states that the autopsy reports contain information relating to the type of wounds, how they were inflicted, etc., which aid law enforcement personnel in conducting their investigation. Respondent also states that the contents of the report are used to test the credibility of witnesses by comparing a witness' proposed testimony with details in the autopsy report.
We adhere to our policy that exceptions to the disclosure requirements of R.C. 149.43(B) be strictly construed against the custodian of records. See State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 1, 364 N.E.2d 854 . However, we agree with respondent that the autopsy reports herein are exempt from disclosure as specific investigatory work product under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). The autopsy is, in itself, an investigation. The fact that it is required because a homicide occurred distinguishes the autopsy report from the "routine factual reports" we held subject to disclosure in State, ex rel. Beacon Journal, v. Univ. of Akron (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 392, 415 N.E.2d 310 . Moreover, we recognize that the confidentiality of the contents of an autopsy report is essential to its effective use in further investigation by law enforcement personnel.
We are unpersuaded by relator's argument that the terms of R.C. 313.09 and 313.10 require disclosure. R.C. 313.10 provides that "* * * records of the coroner * * * are public records * * *." However, in describing the records of the coroner, R.C. 313.09 in part provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cnty. Coroner's Office
...Gilley autopsy reports constitute "specific investigatory work product" as we defined the term in State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch , 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 465 N.E.2d 458 (1984). The facts of Rauch are nearly identical to those presented herein: the Hocking County coroner, Dr. J......
-
State v. Moore
...akin to the autopsy reports deemed nondiscoverable as "specific investigatory work product" in State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 12 OBR 87, 465 N.E.2d 458 (see, also, Yee v. Lechner [1989], 49 Ohio App.3d 61, 550 N.E.2d 217; State v. Trout [June 12, 1......
-
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce
...report is "essential to its effective use in further investigation by law enforcement personnel." Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch , 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 465 N.E.2d 458 (1984). "Respondents' blanket assertion of privilege * * * is at odds with the well-settled understanding that investig......
-
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Cleveland
...fact that it was made during an investigation determines whether it should be disclosed. In State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 12 OBR 87, 465 N.E.2d 458, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the statutory exceptions are to be strictly con......