State ex rel. Yant v. Conrad

• Decision Date: 01 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-1593,95-1593
• Citation: 660 N.E.2d 1211,74 Ohio St.3d 681
• Parties: , 70 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 489, 11 IER Cases 1122 The STATE ex rel. YANT v. CONRAD, Admr.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 681

74 Ohio St.3d 681

660 N.E.2d 1211, 70 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 489,

11 IER Cases 1122

The STATE ex rel. YANT v. CONRAD, Admr.

No. 95-1593.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1996.

Decided March 1, 1996.

Martin D. Yant, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Yolanda V. Vorys and David J. Kovach, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons that follow, we find that except for the identities of bureau employees who were reasonably promised confidentiality, the requested investigative files are public records which are not exempt from disclosure.

Yant asserts that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus under R.C. 149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426, 639 N.E.2d 83, 89. Exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian of the public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian. State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Snowden (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, 647 N.E.2d 1374, 1377.

Initially, as to the investigative file relating to Finch's alleged authorization of state services to ineligible persons, the bureau denied Yant's request on the basis that its internal investigation into that matter had been reopened. Respondent has submitted no evidence or argument that this investigative file is exempt from release under R.C. 149.43. Evidently, respondent construes Yant's subsequent "amended request" for the remaining investigative file relating to Finch as tantamount to a withdrawal of a request for this investigative file.

However, R.C. 149.43(C) requires only a request and a failure of a custodian to make the requested records available for inspection and copying as a prerequisite to a mandamus action. The evidence is uncontroverted that Yant requested access to both investigative files and was denied access to both files. Yant's complaint seeks all records that he requested, which includes the investigative file relating to the rehabilitation services allegation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence or argument establishing the applicability of an exception, Yant is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the release of this investigative file.

As to the other investigative file, which pertains to Finch's alleged use of a state automobile to attend a baseball game, respondent now concedes that under State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. Lashutka (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 185, 648 N.E.2d 808, the file should be released to Yant. However, respondent further claims that the identities of bureau employees who may have been victims of sexual harassment should be redacted under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (b). Following the original submission of this case to the court for decision, respondent filed a notice of "substantial compliance" in which he claimed that disclosure of all of the requested documents had been tendered to Yant except for the redacted names of two alleged victims of sexual harassment. Yet, the notice did not mention the rehabilitation services investigative file previously discussed, and as to the remaining file, we must still consider the propriety of the specified redactions.

Confidential law enforcement investigatory records are exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1). R.C. 149.43(A)(2) provides:

" 'Confidential law enforcement investigatory record' means any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil or administrative nature, but only to the extent that the release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure of any of the following:

"(a) The identity * * * of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

"(b) Information provided by an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised, which information would reasonably tend to disclose his identity...