Help transparency and Ohio law enforcement by encouraging state lawmakers to clarify what information about criminal investigations must be made public immediately with the initial incident report.
In a narrow and very controversial opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court recently upended and muddied decades of established public records law precedent, forcing every law enforcement agency in the state to expend countless hours to determine how to comply.
“This decision makes no sense, is out of step with past Ohio court decisions about public records, and has been a costly and frustrating nuisance to law enforcement,” former Deputy Attorney General of Ohio Mark R. Weaver said. Weaver, whom the Cleveland Plain Dealer called “the guru of Ohio public records law,” co-authored eight editions of the Ohio Attorney General’s Guide to Public Records Law (the “Yellow Book”).
The issue often comes down to this: a drunk driver hits another car and the police make a report. How much of that report is available to the public and how much is confidential to allow the police to do a fair and effective investigation? Prior to the new controversial Ohio Supreme Court decision, the public (including reporters, lawyers, auto body shows, insurance companies, etc.) could get the basic facts from the report. Facts like names and contact information of those involved.
The divided Supreme Court made a new standard that makes little sense and is hard to apply. It will lead to more legal challenges and more taxpayer funded lawyers to resolve them.
There is currently a proposal in the legislative process that would clarify and simplify this issue for everyone. The proposal would change the statue to read:
"specific investigatory work product" means any record, thing, or item that documents the independent thought processes, factual findings, mental impressions, theories, strategies, opinions, or analyses of an investigating officer or an agent of an investigative agency or prosecuting attorney and also includes any documents and evidence collected, written or recorded interviews or statements, interview notes, test results, lab results, preliminary lab results, and
other internal memoranda, things, or items created during any point of an investigation. "Specific investigatory work product" does not include basic information regarding date, time, address, and type of incident.
This definition would provide clear legal guidance to law enforcement agencies while the public could still have access to the basic report information provided before.
Those who support this needed clarification should contact their state senator and state representative and ask them to voice their support for amending the statute. Locate your state legislators here.