State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. City of Akron
Docket: No. 2004-0665
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; December 14, 2004; Ohio; State Supreme Court
On February 28, 2001, Akron Police Officers Rodney Sherman and Howard Vaughn responded to a personal call from Officer Sherman's cousin, who sought assistance with her unruly 15-year-old son. The officers forcibly handled the boy, shoving him onto his bed, making him clean his room, and handcuffing him. At the mother's suggestion, they took him for a ride in their cruiser to simulate an arrest, later pushing him around behind a maintenance shed, where Officer Sherman drew his gun, threatened the boy, and covered him with leaves, indicating he was being "buried" due to his behavior.
On October 2, 2001, the Summit County Children Services Board (SCCSB) received a report of abuse related to this incident, forwarded it to the Akron Police Department, and provided necessary details as per Ohio’s child-abuse reporting statute. SCCSB did not pursue the case further. Subsequently, the police department's Internal Affairs Unit investigated the incident, substantiating most of the child's allegations and finding the officers had violated several departmental rules, resulting in disciplinary action against them, although no criminal charges were filed.
Separately, on February 24, 2002, a 14-year-old girl was raped by two strangers in Akron. After being found by a neighbor and taken home, her parents sought medical attention, leading to a police report. The next day, a hospital employee reported the incident to SCCSB, which declined to open a case due to police involvement and no concerns regarding parental care. The Akron Police Department documented the incident using a standard offense report. The girl's mother sought media coverage from the Akron Beacon Journal to alert the community about the rapists, resulting in increased publicity. Two weeks later, authorities arrested the suspects, who were eventually convicted and sentenced for their crimes.
In September 2001, the Summit County Children Services Board (SCCSB) and Akron Police Chief Michael Matulavich established a memorandum of understanding to outline procedures for handling child-abuse reports as mandated by R.C. 2151.421(J). This memorandum specified that law enforcement would be responsible for interviewing non-related perpetrators of abuse/neglect and collaborating with SCCSB on rehabilitative services for affected children and families.
In November 2001, an assistant law director issued guidelines preventing the public release of records involving juvenile victims of sex offenses or abuse under R.C. 149.43. In January 2002, reporter Stephanie Warsmith sought records related to the suspension of Officers Sherman and Vaughn for their actions involving a 15-year-old child. The city released redacted records, omitting identifying details about the child and mother. Warsmith's subsequent request for an unredacted version was denied on January 18, 2002.
In March 2002, following a report of the Corice Street rape, Warsmith requested the corresponding incident report, which was also denied on the grounds of confidentiality regarding abuse and neglect. The Beacon Journal reiterated its requests for unredacted reports in April 2002, but Akron denied these requests to avoid potential legal repercussions for improper disclosure of child-abuse reports.
On May 24, 2002, the Beacon Journal and Warsmith filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Summit County Court of Appeals, seeking access to the requested reports and attorney fees. The city and Police Chief Matulavich moved for summary judgment, asserting that the records were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act as confidential child-abuse reports and due to constitutional privacy rights, filing the records under seal.
On July 24, 2003, the court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the Beacon Journal and Warsmith, issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Akron and Police Chief Matulavich to release unredacted copies of the Sherman-Vaughn-incident and Corice-Street-rape reports. The court concluded that R.C. 2151.421(H)(1) did not exempt these reports from disclosure, asserting that even if the statute applied to the Corice-Street-rape report, its inclusion in a uniform incident report negated the exemption. The court did not consider the claim of constitutional privacy rights raised by Akron and the police chief. Additionally, it deferred the issue of attorney fees for further review.
In September 2003, the appeal of the July 24 decision was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. By April 21, 2004, the court of appeals awarded the Beacon Journal and Warsmith $13,233.62 in attorney fees out of the $25,676.50 requested, ruling that they were not entitled to fees related to the Corice-Street-rape report due to Akron’s reasonable belief of exemption, but were entitled to fees concerning the Sherman-Vaughn report, which did not raise any abuse report concerns. The bulk of the fees sought was for work by in-house counsel.
The current matter involves Akron and Police Chief Matulavich appealing the mandamus decision and the partial denial of attorney fees, while the Beacon Journal and Warsmith cross-appeal the partial denial of their attorney fees. Mandamus is identified as the proper remedy for compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act, which is to be interpreted liberally to promote public access to records. Both parties agree that the requested records are public documents; however, Akron and the chief argue that these records are exempt under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) due to confidentiality and constitutional privacy protections.
Exceptions to public records disclosure are interpreted strictly against the custodian, who must prove the relevance of any claimed exception. All 50 states have child-abuse reporting laws due to the severe impact of child abuse, with Ohio's specific provision detailed in R.C. 2151.421. This statute outlines the obligations of certain professionals, like attorneys and physicians, to report suspected child abuse or neglect to designated authorities, and allows any individual to make such reports. Reports must be investigated by public children services within 24 hours and are to be kept confidential. Akron and Police Chief Matulavich argue that specific incident reports are confidential under R.C. 2151.421, which clearly excludes them from mandatory disclosure. Conversely, the Beacon Journal and Warsmith contend that this confidentiality only applies to cases of abuse by parents or guardians and does not extend to abuse by other individuals, challenging the city's reliance on this statute for the incidents in question.
R.C. 2151.421(A)(1)(a) and (B) broadly define child abuse and neglect, indicating that reporting is not limited to family settings and encompasses any child facing physical or mental harm indicative of abuse or neglect. R.C. 2151.031 defines an abused child as one who has been sexually victimized or has suffered physical or mental injury, regardless of whether the abuser is a parent or guardian. Parental fault is not necessary for establishing abuse, as the focus is on the harm to the child rather than blame towards a parent or custodian.
The reports in question pertain to incidents of child abuse, specifically a rape case involving a child victim and another incident where a child was threatened with physical harm. While the legislature intended for public children-services agency investigatory records to be confidential, this does not imply that all records from these agencies are entirely exempt from disclosure. Reports made by law enforcement, such as those from the Akron Police Department, do not receive the same confidentiality protections as those from public children-services agencies. R.C. 2151.421 does not explicitly exempt police investigative reports from public disclosure, suggesting that these reports are not generally considered confidential child-abuse investigatory records.
R.C. 2151.421 primarily governs the reporting and investigation of child abuse by social service agencies, not law enforcement. While local peace officers can receive initial reports of known or suspected abuse, they are required to refer these cases to social service agencies for investigation, as the statute does not address police investigations. The memorandum of understanding between the city’s police department and the children-services agency does not alter this responsibility, which is solely vested in the children-services agency, even when cooperating with law enforcement.
The court emphasized that R.C. 149.43, which favors public record access, does not support the confidentiality of reports created under the memorandum. Consequently, reports related to the Sherman-Vaughn incident and Corice-Street rape are not exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43 simply because they are prepared by law enforcement in collaboration with the children-services agency. However, R.C. 2151.421(H)(2) maintains confidentiality over the contents of reports made under this statute, prohibiting unauthorized dissemination.
Reports made to the Summit County Children Services Board (SCCSB) regarding the Sherman-Vaughn incident and to the Akron Police about the Corice-Street rape are covered under R.C. 2151.421(A) and entitled to confidentiality under R.C. 2151.421(H). Police reports that reference these initial reports may be redacted accordingly. The public disclosure of police records will not undermine the reporting encouragement established by R.C. 2151.421, as the statute primarily provides confidentiality for the initial report and immunity for reporters, with the requirement that any specific references in the records to the initial reports will be redacted.
Reports of abuse do not automatically qualify for confidentiality under R.C. 2151.421(H) since they are not specifically categorized in that statute. However, Akron and Police Chief Matulavich may redact references to initial reports mentioned in R.C. 2151.421(A) and (B). The court of appeals incorrectly limited its analysis to whether disclosure was prohibited under R.C. 2151.421(H)(1) without considering other exemptions, particularly the constitutional right to privacy, which the city and police chief argued in their summary judgment motion. The court ruled in favor of R.C. 2151.421(H) protecting certain personal information, thereby avoiding the need to address constitutional issues.
In the Sherman-Vaughn incident, the police department provided a report to the Beacon Journal, redacting identifying details about the child and mother. While police internal affairs records are generally public, they can be exempt if applicable statutes apply, which justified the redactions in this case. Conversely, regarding the Corice Street rape report, although identifying information about the child and parents is also exempt under R.C. 2151.421(H), general details about the incident, such as location and perpetrator descriptions, may not be subject to the same exemption. This approach balances protecting the child’s identity while allowing the mother to publicize essential details for community awareness and safety. The court of appeals suggested that any incorporated exempt information in a public offense report could negate the exemption applicability, although this was mentioned only in dicta.
The court of appeals incorrectly relied on State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer and State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. to support its conclusions regarding the disclosure of police offense-and-incident reports. In Cincinnati Enquirer, the case involved 911 tapes, while in Maurer, the court did not establish a blanket rule for the disclosure of all police reports, but rather determined a specific report was public under the facts presented. Consequently, while police offense-and-incident reports are generally public records, they may be redacted to protect exempt information under state or federal law.
The court of appeals erred by mandating Akron and Police Chief Matulavich to provide an unredacted copy of the Corice-Street-rape report, as the city is entitled to redact personal information regarding the child victim and her parents per R.C. 2151.421(H). Additionally, the court of appeals made a similar error concerning the Sherman-Vaughn-incident report. The court awarded attorney fees for the mandamus claim related to the Sherman-Vaughn report, which was unwarranted due to the lack of merit in the unredacted request. Conversely, the denial of attorney fees for the Corice-Street-rape report was appropriate, considering the protected information and concerns about criminal liability under R.C. 2151.99.
Furthermore, the majority of the attorney fees claimed were for work by the Beacon Journal's in-house counsel, with no indication that the journal incurred additional costs for her services. The court's discretion in awarding attorney fees is evaluated based on the government's compliance with public records requests and the public benefit from disclosure.
Fees incurred in a mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 are not recoverable, as established in the case of State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2000). The board cannot claim attorney fees due to a lack of evidence showing payment to counsel. Additionally, there is no indication that Susan Besser has paid or is required to pay attorney fees to her husband for his legal representation. Fees should only be recoverable if directly linked to the failure to produce a public record. The court of appeals should have denied the entire request for attorney fees. Consequently, the judgment is reversed concerning the court of appeals’ orders to compel disclosure of the unredacted Sherman-Vaughn incident report and exempt personal information in the Corice-Street rape report, which can be redacted under R.C. 2151.421(H). The court affirms the order to disclose nonexempt information in the Corice-Street rape report and the denial of related attorney fees. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with concurrence from Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, and O’Donnell.
