State ex rel. Robusky v. Chicko
| Decision Date | 22 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-350,68-350 |
| Citation | 244 N.E.2d 478,17 Ohio St.2d 1 |
| Parties | , 46 O.O.2d 59 The STATE ex rel. ROBUSKY, Appellee, v. CHICKO, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a county sheriff receives fees from the sale of copies of motor vehicle accident reports, prepared as required by Section 5502.11, Revised Code, such fees are 'public money,' as defined in Section 117.10, Revised Code, and funds resulting therefrom are subject to audit by the Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices.
The Court of Appeals allowed a writ of prohibition to issue prohibiting respondent, Chicko, an examiner in the Bureau of Inspection of Supervision of Public Offices, state of Ohio, 'from examining the records and documents of the Geauga County Sheriff's Equipment Fund.' 11 Ohio App.2d 235, 230 N.E.2d 134.
The sole issue in the cause arose by reason of the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Geauga County that a demurrer of the relator to the answer of the respondent was well taken and that, in the event that respondent did not plead further within a period of 30 days the writ would issue. The respondent did not plead further and the writ did issue.
The case is before this court as a matter of right upon appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals in a cause originating in the Court of Appeals.
Mark Sperry, Chardon, for appellee.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William J. Lee, Columbus, for appellant.
PAUL M. HERBERT, Judge. (Retired. Assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Constitution.)
The operative facts, conceded to be true for purposes of the demurrer, disclose that relator, Louis A. Robusky, was at all times herein, the Sheriff of Geauga County and that respondent, Chicko, was an examiner in the Bureau of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices, state of Ohio.
The answer, in substance, alleges further that the relator, as Sheriff, had been making available to lawyers and to insurance agents, copies of accident reports for fees and depositing such fees in the 'Equipment Fund.'
Relator contends that the respondent does not have authority in law to require relator to make an accounting of the disposition of such fees.
The writ of prohibition allowed by the Court of Appeals prohibited the respondent-examiner from making an inspection of the records and documents of the '* * * Geauga County Sheriff's Equipment Fund.'
Under the provisions of Section 117.03, Revised Code, the respondent-examiner is authorized and empowered to issue subpoena and compulsory process for the production of any books, papers or records of any public office.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals presents this question: Was it the lawful duty of the respondent, Chicko, to audit the money in the '* * * Sheriff's Equipment Fund for the period August 1st. 1960, to January 22, 1966,' to issue subpoenas under the provisions of Chapter 117, Revised Code, and to determine, further if the money in the equipment fund was included in the term 'public money' as provided in Section 117.10 Revised Code?
The 'accident reports' here involved are of statutory origin. Section 5502.11, Revised Code, reads:
'Every state highway patrolman, sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, or other law enforcement officer investigating a motor vehicle accident shall, within 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Ferguson
...quasi-judicial power. State ex rel. Robusky v. Chicko (1967), 11 Ohio App.2d 235, 230 N.E.2d 134, reversed on other grounds (1969), 17 Ohio St.2d 1, 244 N.E.2d 478. This court has held that the R.C. 117.03 subpoena power is to be used to facilitate the comprehensive biennial examination req......