In the case of State ex rel. Ware v. Walsh, 2021-Ohio-4585, the Ninth District Court of Appeals denied an inmate’s petition to compel a prosecutor’s office to respond to his public records request because the prosecutor’s office had already provided requested personnel files and the inmate failed to obtain a finding from the sentencing judge that information sought in other records related to the inmate’s case was necessary to support a justiciable claim.
Here, the inmate alleged that the inmate mailed a public records request to the prosecutor’s office that was never responded to over a year after the request was mailed. The prosecutor’s office argued they had already responded to the inmate’s request.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the prosecutor’s office had already provided the inmate’s personnel files. With respect to the other records related to the inmate’s case that the prosecutor’s office had not provided, the Court noted that when a person is incarcerated and seeks records related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, the Public Records Act requires the sentencing court to first determine whether the information sought in the public records is necessary to support a justiciable claim. Because the inmate failed to obtain such a finding from his sentencing judge, the inmate had no right to access those records.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.