Wooster Republican Printing Co. v. City of Wooster

• Decision Date: 04 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1338,77-1338
• Citation: 10 O.O.3d 312,56 Ohio St.2d 126,383 N.E.2d 124
• Parties: , 10 O.O.3d 312, 4 Media L. Rep. 1942 WOOSTER REPUBLICAN PRINTING COMPANY, d. b. a. The Wooster Daily Record, Appellee, v. CITY OF WOOSTER et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 126

56 Ohio St.2d 126

383 N.E.2d 124, 10 O.O.3d 312, 4 Media L. Rep. 1942

WOOSTER REPUBLICAN PRINTING COMPANY, d. b. a. The Wooster Daily Record, Appellee, v. CITY OF WOOSTER et al., Appellants.

No. 77-1338.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 4, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1. R.C. 149.43, providing that "(a)ll public records shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection," must be read In pari materia with R.C. Chapter 1347, which became effective January 1, 1977. (Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton, 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 341 N.E.2d 576, distinguished.)

2. In determining whether disclosure to the general public of personal information contained in an otherwise "public record" would constitute an improper use of personal information under the provisions of R.C. Chapter 1347, the interest of the public's "right to know," codified in R.C. 149.43, must be balanced against an individual's "right of personal privacy," codified in R.C. Chapter 1347. In the consideration of these respective interests, doubt should be resolved in favor of public disclosure of "public records" in order to insure the existence of an informed public.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 1347.08(F), the General Assembly has denied to any person "access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil or criminal action or proceeding"; consequently, the release of records containing such information has been "prohibited by state * * * law," within the meaning of the exception to the compulsory disclosure provisions of R.C. 149.43.

4. Police and other law enforcement investigatory records are not subject to the compulsory disclosure provisions of R.C. 149.43.

On January 1, 1977, the effective date of R.C. Chapter 1347, the city of Wooster closed to public inspection the information contained in the records here in question. Thereafter plaintiff-appellee, Wooster Republican Printing Company, d. b. a. The Wooster Daily Record (the "newspaper"), instituted this action, based upon R.C. 149.43, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its right to inspect certain "records" in the custody of various personnel of the city of Wooster, and asking for a permanent injunction enjoining the city from withholding these records from public access.

The records withheld included the admission and discharge records of the Wooster Community Hospital, emergency squad records and fire alarm response records of the Wooster Fire Department, and the investigatory files of the Wooster Police Department.

On April 4, 1977, the trial court granted a permanent injunction enjoining the city from withholding information contained in the (1) emergency squad response records, (2) emergency response records, (3) fire department alarm report records, (4) fire response records, and (5) police department incident records. ¹ In so finding, the court stated that these were "public records" as defined in R.C. 149.43.

However, the trial court refused to require the city to make available for public inspection the admission and discharge records of Wooster Community Hospital (a municipally owned hospital) unless the patient expressly consented thereto. The trial court based this holding upon the fact that R.C. 149.43 specifically excepts from the definition of "public record" those records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations.

The trial court also refused to require the release of the following reports: (1) police missing persons and runaway case reports, (2) police burglary or robbery case reports, (3) police medical case reports, (4) crime against person case reports, (5) stolen and recovered vehicle case reports, (6) police general case reports, (7) police miscellaneous incident reports, (8) police supplementary reports, and (9) emergency squad supplemental reports. In considering these records the Court of Common Pleas, in effect, determined that the right of inspection accorded by R.C. 149.43 does not extend to all "public records," and that some records, although of a public nature, must be kept secret and free from common inspection, such as those relating to the apprehension, prosecution, and detention of criminals. The trial court found that because these reports were investigatory in nature they need not be disclosed.

In its appeal to the Court of Appeals the newspaper contended that the trial court erred in finding that admission and discharge records of the Wooster Community Hospital are not public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43. It also maintained that the lower court erred in not requiring the city to release its investigative records.

Specifically, the records before the Court of Appeals, all of which were held by that court to be subject to compulsory disclosure under R.C. 149.43, contain the following information:

(a) Admission and Discharge Records of the Wooster Community Hospital The exact form used was never introduced in evidence. However, the newspaper stated that the only type of information sought is the fact of an admission or discharge and the name and address of the patient;

(b) Police Missing Person and Runaway Case Report This form includes the complainant's name, the date and time received, the date and time the incident occurred, and the date and time it was dispatched. It also contains other relevant information, including a description of the missing individual;

(c) Police Burglary or Robbery Case Report The information contained in this form is similar to that contained in (b) above;

(d) Police Medical Case Report This form is used where someone is injured and is taken to the hospital where medical treatment is administered. It is most often used to supplement another report, I. e., crimes against persons (see (f) Infra );

(e) Police Stolen and Recovered Vehicle Case Report The information contained in this form is similar to that contained in (b) above;

(f) Crimes Against Person Report The information contained in this form is similar to that contained in (b) above;

(g) General Case Report This form contains information similar to that in (b) above and is used for thefts, vandalism, and other losses of some type;

(h) Police Miscellaneous Incident Report This form contains information similar to that contained in (b) above and is used for noncriminal situations, I. e., domestic disturbances, barking dogs; this form may contain sensitive information, E. g., obscene phone calls, where a key to a home is kept, and lighting conditions in the house;

(i) Police Supplementary Report This form is used to supplement any of the above police reports. It may contain opinions of the victim, police officer, complainant, information as to what took place, and the follow-up investigation;

(j) Emergency Squad Supplemental Report This form includes information such as the name and address of the victim and the address of the emergency run. It also contains the comments of the squad members concerning information pertinent to later treatment by a physician or possible criminal involvement.

The majority decision of the Court of Appeals found that a public hospital's admission and discharge records are "public records" under R.C. 149.43, as interpreted by this court in Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 341 N.E.2d 576. In so holding, the appellate court overruled the finding of the Court of Common Pleas that the hospital records in question fall within the psychiatric and physical examinations exception contained in R.C. 149.43.

The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court's finding that investigative reports are not "public records" which must be made available for public inspection. Again, the appellate court applied the definition of "public records" found in Dayton Newspapers and concluded that such information must be disclosed.

In so concluding, the Court of Appeals found that R.C. Chapter 1347 does not prohibit the disclosure of any personal information contained in the records. The court relied upon former R.C. 1347.07(A)(2), which stated that "personal information" may not be disclosed unless, Inter alia, such disclosure "is otherwise * * * authorized by * * * state statutes." ² From this finding the court, interpreting this court's decision in Dayton Newspapers, supra, as requiring that all "public records" be disclosed, determined that R.C. Chapter 1347 did not apply to the records in question.

This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

H. Lloyd Cornelius, Director of Law, Wooster, for appellees.

Taggart, Cox & Hays, and D. William Evans, Jr., Wooster, for appellants.

I.

LEACH, Chief Justice.

A proper resolution of the issues involved herein requires a careful analysis of the somewhat loosely drafted R.C. Chapter 1347 and R.C. 149.43. This task is complicated by an absence of any attempt by the General Assembly to coordinate these two pieces of interrelating legislation into a clear statutory and regulatory scheme. Additionally, a literal reading of this court's opinion in Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton, supra (45 Ohio St.2d 107, 341 N.E.2d 576), without a recognition that it preceded the effective date of R.C. Chapter 1347 and dealt with substantially different types of information kept by a public agency, lends confusion to the problem.

R.C. 149.43 reads, in pertinent part:

" * * * 'public record' means Any record required to be kept by any governmental unit * * * except records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations * * *, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law." (Emphasis added.) In Dayton Newspapers this court stated in the syllabus that "(a) record is 'required to be kept' by a governmental unit, within the meaning of R.C. 149.43, where the unit's keeping of such record is necessary to the unit's execution of its duties and responsibilities." At pages 108 and 109, 341 N.E.2d at page 576 in the opinion, a "public record" was described as "any record which but for...