State ex rel. Robusky v. Chicko

• Decision Date: 26 September 1967
• Citation: 11 Ohio App.2d 235,230 N.E.2d 134
• Parties: , 40 O.O.2d 495 The STATE ex rel. ROBUSKY v. CHICKO.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 235

11 Ohio App.2d 235

230 N.E.2d 134, 40 O.O.2d 495

The STATE ex rel. ROBUSKY v. CHICKO.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Geauga County.

Sept. 26, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An examiner for the Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices is exercising a quasi-judicial function in determining that an account maintained by a public official is an official fund that is subject to inspection pursuant to Chapter 117 of the Revised Code.

2. When an examiner for the Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices issues a subpoena to a public official pursuant to Section 117.03 of the Revised Code to produce all records and documents concerning a certain fund, a writ of prohibition is proper remedy to challenge the authority of such state examiner to make such an examination.

3. There is no statute which requires a sheriff to furnish copies of accident reports on request or directs or authorizes him to collect a fee for such service, and there is no statutory prohibition against the furnishing of such reports.

4. Any fee or money collected by the person holding the office of sheriff for furnishing reports of accidents is a fee collected for a personal and not an official act. In the event that such accident reports are furnished to the public by a person holding the office of sheriff, and are purchased voluntarily, the remuneration received cannot be recovered for the use of the county treasurer and is not subject to inspection by the Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices.

Mark Sperry, Chardon, for relator.

William B. Saxbe, .atty. Gen., and William T. Bodoh, Columbus, for respondent.

LYNCH, Judge.

Relator is Sheriff of Geauga County, and respondent is a state examiner for the Ohio Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices. Respondent issued a subpoena for relator, pursuant to Section 117.03 of the Revised Code, to produce all his records and documents pertaining to the Geauga County Sheriff's Equipment Fund.

Relator filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this court to prevent respondent from compelling relator to produce such records. Relator contends that there are no statutory requirements for a Sheriff's Equipment Fund and that such fund does not include public moneys.

Respondent filed a demurrer to the petition on the basis that he was performing a ministerial act pursuant to Section 117.09 of the Revised Code, and that the writ of prohibition is not a proper remedy under the circumstances of this case.

This court overruled respondent's demurrer to the petition on the basis that respondent was exercising quasi-judicial functions in determining that the Geauga County Sheriff's Equipment Fund is an official fund and that the records pertaining Thereto are subject to investigation by respondent, and that the filing of a petition for a writ of prohibition was proper because relator had no adequate remedy at law.

Respondent filed an answer in which the only additional allegation to that contained in his demurrer was that telator has been making available to lawyers and insurance agents copies of accident reports for fees, which fees are public moneys under the provisions of Section 117.10 of the Revised Code, and that relator is accountable for these fees.

Relator filed a demurrer to the answer of respondent, and this is the issue before this court.

In Geauga...