Late last year Ohio’s Supreme Court sided with the City of Columbus in its public record dispute with the Columbus dispatch over the redacted identities of officers involved in an exchange of gunfire with an armed robbery suspect because those officers fell within the definition of “victim” under Ohio Revised Code 2903.07, Marsy’s Law.
Under Marsy’s Law, crime victims have certain privacy rights including redaction of their identifying information from public records, such as police reports, before their release. But what was intended as straightforward privacy protections sparked both legal and media controversy when Ohio police departments started redacting identifying information about their own officers from police reports where the officer involved was also the victim of some crime during the underlying incident.
Local media outlets and open-record advocates objected to the practice, arguing that Marsy’s Law did not apply to responding police officers and that Ohio’s sunshine laws required disclosure of the identities.
This dispute reached the Supreme Court of Ohio via a mandamus filed by the Columbus Dispatch, seeking to compel the production of unredacted body camera footage, and reports, of an officer involved shooting that occurred in the Summer of 2023. On the day in question, two men robbed a Porche dealership in Columbus, Ohio. Columbus Police Officers pursued the suspects down I-70, when the men suddenly stopped the vehicle on the highway. Two male suspects fled on foot while a third male, who was hidden in the vehicle, suddenly exited and opened fire on officers, who returned fire in their own defense, ultimately killing the suspect.
After the incident, the Columbus Dispatch submitted a standard open records request for “all body camera, dash camera, and 911 calls” from the incident. Columbus Police denied the request citing, inter alia, Marsy’s Law. Several weeks later, Columbus Police publicly released heavily redacted versions of these videos to the public. The Columbus Dispatch demanded release of unredacted materials; this litigation followed.
In resolving the issue, the Ohio Supreme Court was forced to answer a simple question – are Ohio Peace Officers subject to Marsy’s Law protections when they themselves are victims of a crime? It answered in the affirmative, denying the writ of mandamus. Writing for the majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that Marsy’s Law’s definition of victim was broad and included the officers.
However, this answer is both controversial and complicated. The Court’s analysis was thorough and greatly considered the delicate balance between the public’s right to the open and free discovery of public records, against the statutory and Constitutional protections afforded by Marsy’s Law. The Dispatch aggressively argued that on-duty Peace Officers could not be “victims” of a crime, by nature of their chosen profession. The Court did not bite on that logic, pointing out that Marsy’s Law made no such distinction, and that the statutory definition of “victim” clearly does not carve out an exception for public officials.
In an opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part, Justice Patrick F. Fisher agreed that Marsy’s Law applied to officers generally but urged caution on a blanket application to all officers and indicated he would have released some of the footage. Another Justice seemed to agree with the Dispatch’s argument questioning whether an on-duty Peace Officer has any right to privacy.
Specifically, those opinions felt some of the body camera footage should have been released, those from other officers on scene which did not receive gunfire for example. And the majority was clear; Marsy’s Law applied here because the officers involved fit the definition of victim under the statute. The statute defines a victim as “any person whom a criminal offense is committed or who is directly harmed by a criminal offense.” Since these officers were shot at, they clearly qualified under that definition.
Moving forward, police departments can confidently rely on Marsy’s Law to redact the identities of officers from public records where an officer is also a victim to that incident. But the Court’s decision offers a fact dependent protection—not a blank check. Departments should carefully review each specific incident to determine if Marsy’s Law applies to those facts.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, or have any questions concerning governmental or public liability issues, please contact a member of our Governmental Public liability practice group.
Attorneys
Toledo
Columbus