In 2001an Officer tried to help out his cousin by
responding to his cousin’s request to scare her unruly 15
year old son into behaving properly. The Officer and his
partner shoved the boy, handcuffed him, took the boy for a
ride in a police cruiser and buried the boy in some leaves.
One of the officers shook the grip of his gun in the boy’s
face. Subsequently, someone reported the incident to the
Children Services Board (CSB). CSB did not accept the case
for ongoing investigation. CSB forwarded the matter to the
Police Department. Internal Affairs (IA) conducted an
investigation and concluded that the officers had violated a
number of police department rules. The Police Department
disciplined the officers for those rule violations.
In February 2002 two boys raped a 14 year old girl. The
boys were strangers to the girl. The girl’s parents took her
to the hospital and the police made a report. A hospital
employee, as required by law, reported the rape to CSB. CSB
did not open a case because the police were investigating
the matter and the girl was receiving necessary care from
her parents. The girl’s mother contacted the Beacon Journal
newspaper to warn the neighborhood. (Two weeks later the
police arrested two subjects who subsequently were convicted
of crimes against the child.)
A reporter from the Beacon Journal, Warsmith, learned
that two officers were suspended for their treatment of
child, and requested copies of records regarding the IA
investigation. The City released the copies of the records
with the child’s and mother’s names and other identifying
information deleted. Warsmith then requested a complete,
unredacted copy of the IA records.
About the same time, Warsmith requested a copy of the
child rape report. The police department denied the
request. The City believed that the child rape report was
exempt from disclosure because it involved child abuse.
The Beacon Journal reiterated Warsmith’s requests for
copies of the IA investigation and copies of the child rape
report with only the reporting names redacted. The City
again rejected the requests stating that the law prohibited
release of child abuse reports.
The Beacon Journal and Warsmith filed a petition with a
court for a writ of Mandamus to compel the City and police
department to release the reports. The newspaper and
reporter also asked the court to order payment of their
attorney fees.
The Supreme Court stated that reports that document
child abuse are not necessarily confidential under the law,
R.C. 2151.421. However, the contents of reports about known
or suspected child abuse are not subject to disclosure. In
fact, R.C. 2151.99 provides that a violation of R.C.
2151.421(H)(2)is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. The
reports, the one made to CSB about the IA investigation and
the one to the Police Department about the child rape, were
entitled to confidentiality. “To the extent that the
police reports concerning there incidents referred to these
initial reports, the city and its police chief were entitled
to redact those portions of the reports.” State ex rel.
Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St. 3d 399,
408, 2004-Ohio-6557. Therefore the City properly denied the
Beacon Journal’s and Warsmith’s access to the deleted
information in the IA investigative report which was
exempted from disclosure by R.C. 2151.421(H). The City can
properly redact the documents to eliminate personal
information concerning the child rape victim and her
parents. Further, the Supreme Court denied the newspaper’s
request for attorney’s fees because the City reasonably
believed that the disclosure of this information would
subject them to criminal liability. Also, the Beacon
Journal’s in-house counsel did most of the work and those
“fees” are not recoverable in mandamus actions where there
is no evidence that the newspaper actually paid any attorney
fees to its counsel.
