Are the videos recorded by cameras mounted on the dashboards of State Highway Patrol cruisers subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act? It depends, according to the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7987, as the videos must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if “the recordings contain images that have concrete investigative value specific to the prosecution” of a suspect. Enquirer at ¶ 45.
The recordings at issue in this case involved the pursuit of a Ford Fusion on Interstate 71 that ended with the suspect crashing into a guardrail. The pursuit produced three dash-cam recordings that a reporter from the Cincinnati Enquirer (“Enquirer”) requested under the Ohio Public Records Act. The Ohio Department of Public Safety denied the request claiming that the records fell under the confidential law enforcement investigatory records exception to the Ohio Public Records Act. The Enquirer filed a lawsuit to compel production of the records.
The confidential law enforcement investigatory records exception is a specific exception to the Ohio Public Records Act that permits a public body to prevent the disclosure of a public record if the record (1) pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature and (2) that its release would create a high probability of disclosure of specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific work product.
The Ohio Supreme Court easily determined that the dash-cam recordings met the first part of the test. However, the Court declined to adopt a rule that would “shield from disclosure all dash-cam recordings in their entirety [under the second part of the test] merely because they contain potential evidence of criminal activity that may aid in a subsequent prosecution.” Enquirer at ¶ 45. The Court also declined “to adopt a per se rule subjecting all dash-cam recordings to disclosure notwithstanding the applicability of any exception.” Enquirer at ¶ 45. Instead the recordings “illustrate that a dash-cam recording, as a whole, may not easily fall in or outside the exception” and that a “case-by-case review is necessary to determine how much of the recordings should [be] disclosed.” Enquirer at ¶ 45.
Applying this case-specific inquiry, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that only “about 90 seconds of [the nearly three hours of] recording—when [the officer] takes [the suspect] to her patrol car, reads him his Miranda rights, and questions him—could have been withheld as investigative work product compiled in anticipation of litigation” as the officer “intended to secure admissible statements for the prosecution’s later use at trial.” Enquirer at ¶ 46.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.