State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. Lashutka

• Decision Date: 20 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-603,95-603
• Citation: 648 N.E.2d 808,72 Ohio St.3d 185
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. POLICE OFFICERS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS et al. v. LASHUTKA, Mayor, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 185

72 Ohio St.3d 185

648 N.E.2d 808

The STATE ex rel. POLICE OFFICERS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS et al. v. LASHUTKA, Mayor, et al.

No. 95-603.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 30, 1995.

Decided April 20, 1995.

On March 23, 1995, relators, Police Officers for Equal Rights ("POER"), James Moss and John S. Marshall, filed an original action in this court denominated as "Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition." Named respondents are Gregory S. Lashutka, Mayor of the city of Columbus, and James Jackson, Chief of the Columbus Division of Police.

In their petition, relators allege that, pursuant to R.C. 149.43, they, over a period of time, requested from appropriate officials the opportunity to inspect certain records of the city of Columbus, specifically, records of the Division of Police. Relators allege that their repeated requests have been denied even though the records they seek (Internal Affairs Bureau investigations, chain of command investigations and other like records) are "public records" and are not subject to any exception found in R.C. 149.43 or case law.

Relators further allege that the respondents are about to destroy records of the Division of Police pursuant to the city of Columbus's records retention policy, adopted in June 1994, and that some of the records scheduled for destruction are records being sought by relators pursuant to their R.C. 149.43 requests. Continuing, relators allege that the records retention system of the Columbus Division of Police is poor, that the system does not comply with R.C. 149.43, that there is no central control of the various types of records kept and that any records sought cannot be retrieved in a timely manner.

In their prayer for relief, relators then " * * * request that this Court issue an order compelling the Respondents to furnish Relators with the requested records for inspection and copying," that "this Court issue an order compelling the Respondents to modify their record retentions system so that files of its personnel can be accessed in a reasonable period of time following a request by a member of the public to inspect such records," and "that this Court issue a peremptory writ prohibiting the Respondents or their agents and/or employees from proceeding with any destruction of records which are subject to the Relators' pending public records requests."

Accompanying relators' petition, relators also filed, on March 23, 1995, a memorandum in support of their requests, two affidavits and a motion to expedite hearing of the cause. On March 31, 1995, relators and respondents filed a "Joint Motion of the Parties for Issuance of a Preemptory [sic ] Writ of Prohibition." (Emphasis added.) The order proposed by the parties would have granted a peremptory writ of prohibition which was designed to prevent the destruction of the records sought by relators. That same day, March 31, 1995, the parties withdrew their motions and simultaneously filed a "Joint Motion of the Parties for Issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus." (Emphasis added.) The filing included a proposed order which would issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the Columbus Chief of Police and other city officers and employees, during the pendency of this original action, to refrain from destroying certain records.

The two affidavits filed by relators, as part of the original papers filed by relators, were affidavits of James Moss and John Marshall. These affidavits make clear that the records being sought by relators are personnel and internal investigative records. All the records sought concern regulation and discipline of police officers in connection with performance of their duties. None of the records sought involves pending criminal prosecutions or proceedings.

The matter is now before us for decision.

Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. Gittes, Columbus, for relators.

Ronald J. O'Brien, Columbus City Atty., for respondents.

DOUGLAS, Justice.

This is yet another in a series of cases involving public records. While we have, time and time again, informed public officials and public agencies of their duties pursuant to R.C. 149.43 (to release records in their possession, which records clearly belong to the public), we, nevertheless, continue to see obfuscation, cunctation, delay and even arrogance in far too many cases. This case is a good example.

Relators have requested that respondents provide certain records maintained by the Columbus Department of Public Safety, Division of Police. In response to their request, relators received a letter (which is part of the record in this case) from the Legal Bureau of the Division of Police. The letter, dated February 17, 1995, emphatically states that the request of relators for records is denied on the authority of State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83. The letter states, in part, that "[a]pplying the language in Steckman to Internal Affairs investigations, it is clear they are not public records." (Emphasis sic.) The Division of...