State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser

Decision Date20 November 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-1725,84-1725
Parties, 20 O.B.R. 279 The STATE, ex rel. MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS et al., Appellants, v. GOSSER, Clerk, Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Any document appertaining to, or recording of, the proceedings of a court, or any record necessary to the execution of the responsibilities of a governmental unit is a "public record" and "required to be kept" within the meaning of R.C. 149.43. Absent any specific statutory exclusion, such record must be made available for public inspection.

2. When statutes impose a duty on a particular official to oversee records, that official is the "person responsible" under R.C. 149.43(B).

3. A local rule of court cannot prevail when it is inconsistent with the express requirements of a statute.

The facts of the present case are not disputed. Appellants, the state and local chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers ("MADD"), are non-profit organizations dedicated to reducing the number of deaths resulting from those who drive while under the influence of alcohol. Pursuant to their goal, MADD has established a court-watch program in conjunction with Ohio Women In Traffic Safety ("OWITS") to monitor court enforcement of Ohio's driving-while-intoxicated ("DWI") laws. Under this program, statistics are compiled based on material contained in the court's case files. The agreed stipulation of facts shows that prior to March 1, 1983, the Clerk of the Miami County Municipal Court kept a case file containing the following documents: (A) alcohol influence report; (B) breath test result; (C) statement of facts by arresting officer; (D) accident report (in some cases); (E) "Leads" information sheet from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles which details the prior driving record of the charged defendant; (F) the charging ticket or citation; (G) all pleadings and entries filed by the parties in connection with the prosecution of the case; (H) the file jacket showing action taken by the court; (I) the presentence investigation and report, if any; (J) notes by the municipal court judges taken in connection with a trial or any hearing on the case; (K) entry by the court describing results of a hearing, and whether driving rights were revoked or limited driving privileges granted.

After March 1, 1983, appellee, Jane B. Gosser, Clerk of the Miami County Municipal Court, informed the appellants that due to a local court policy, they could no longer have access to those portions of DWI files containing alcohol influence reports, breath test results, statements of facts by arresting officers, accident reports, and the Leads information sheets (documents A-E in agreed stipulation). MADD petitioned the court several times to change its policy and finally instituted the present action in the Court of Appeals for Miami County for a writ of mandamus. The writ sought to require the clerk to personally "keep adequate records of the proceedings of the Miami County Municipal Court, to restrain * * * [the Clerk] from wrongfully purging or concealing the contents * * * and to make available to * * * [appellants] such records and * * * information * * *." After appellants initiated the above action, the Miami County Municipal Court adopted a local rule of court 1 which incorporated the above limited disclosure policy.

Both parties, having agreed upon the facts, filed motions for summary judgment. The court of appeals denied the writ and granted summary judgment to appellee because, under the local court rule, the clerk was no longer the keeper of the requested files.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.

Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Becker, Douglas S. Roberts and David H. Meade, Columbus, for appellants.

Jeffrey M. Welbaum, Pros. Atty., and Carla M. Suerdieck, Tipp City, for appellee.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Simon B. Karas, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Attorney General of Ohio.

HOLMES, Justice.

The question presented by this appeal is whether a writ of mandamus shall issue to compel the Clerk of the Miami County Municipal Court to make available to appellants the recorded information identified as documents A-E, above. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that appellants are entitled to the writ of mandamus.

The extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus may be granted to compel execution of an official duty from a ministerial officer when three conditions exist. The relator must show (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. Eudela v. Rogers (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 159, 161, 459 N.E.2d 539; State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 451 N.E.2d 225.

Appellee's legal duties, and hence appellants' legal rights, hinge on the interpretation given to R.C. 149.43(B), which states: "All public records shall be promptly prepared and made available to any member of the general public at all reasonable times for inspection. Upon request, a person responsible for public records shall make copies available at cost, within a reasonable period of time. In order to facilitate broader access to public records, governmental units shall maintain public records in such a manner that they can be made available for inspection in accordance with this division." The question thus presented is whether the files sought are, in fact, "public records," and whether the appellee is the appropriate "person responsible" for making them available to the public.

I

Information is a public record when it "must be kept by a governmental unit" and when the information is specifically "required to be kept by law." State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., v. Lesak (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 1, 2, 457 N.E.2d 821, citing State, ex rel. Citizens Bar Assn., v. Gagliardo (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 70, 378 N.E.2d 153 , and interpreting R.C. 149.43. Also, in Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 341 N.E.2d 576 , the phrase "required to be kept," was held to mean "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." Id. at 108-109, 341 N.E.2d 576.

It is difficult to conceive of more necessary records for the disposition of DWI cases than those requested by appellants. 2 R.C. 4511.191(K) 3 speaks in terms of evidence of blood-alcohol level, chemical or blood tests, and prior convictions of the accused committed while under the influence of alcohol. Invariably, the requested documents A-E are offered as evidence on these issues both at trial and on appeal. R.C. 149.40 states that:

"Any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office, is a record within the meaning of sections 149.31 to 149.44, inclusive, of the Revised Code."

It would seem to be clear that if, as here, the requested documents are received by, are under the jurisdiction of, and are utilized by, the court to render its decision, then their retention assures the proper functioning of the governmental unit and, accordingly, could reasonably be classified as "public records" and required to be kept within the meaning of R.C. 149.43.

II

It must now be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • State ex rel. Beacon Journal v. Bond
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 24 Diciembre 2002
    ...S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774. {¶ 12} The Beacon Journal nonetheless relies on our holding in State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E.2d 706, paragraph one of the syllabus, for the proposition that "[a]ny document appertaining to * *......
  • Kish v. Akron
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 2006
    ...or other activities of a public office can be classified reasonably as a record. See State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 33, 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E.2d 706. So can any material upon which a public office could rely in such determinations. State ex rel......
  • State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Ass'n Certified Grievance Comm.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 2019
    ...Journal Publishing Co. v. Bond , 98 Ohio St.3d 146, 2002-Ohio-7117, 781 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 9-13 ; State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser , 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 33, 485 N.E.2d 706 (1985). After all, the Public Records Act provides that "public records" are records kept by a "public of......
  • State v. Rohrer
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 10 Diciembre 2015
    ...for public inspection unless there is a specific statutory exclusion which applies. State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E.2d 706, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Potchen v. Kelly (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 21, 26, 719 N.E.2d 570, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT