Skip to main content
· 10/22/2018

Narciso v. Powell Police Dept.

Citations

  • 2018 Ohio 4590

Syllabus

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 incident report investigatory work product uncharged suspect incorporated safety privacy non-record burden of proof inextricably intertwined. Overview: Requester sought police investigative file. Police department provided a partial incident report and conceded the investigation had concluded, but asserted that all remaining records were \inextricably intertwined\ with the identity of an uncharged suspect, and that some of the records would endanger the physical safety of crime victims or witnesses, or violate a constitutional right of privacy, or were non-records. The special master found that the department must release additional parts of the initial incident reports, including documents incorporated by reference. The special master found that the investigatory file contained specific items of information that if released would have a high probability of disclosing the identity of an uncharged suspect. The special master further found that Powell PD provided no evidence that disclosure of any record would endanger the life or physical safety of a crime victim or witness. The special master further found that social security numbers and images of genitals, breasts and underwear were subject to a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and may be redacted from the records. The special master further found that to the extent the contents of storage devices obtained in the investigation were not actually used to document the investigation, they were not \records\ of the department and thus not subject to the Public Records Act. The special master further found that the department could redact information excepted by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd) and R.C. 1306.23. Other than two particular records, the special master found that none of the excepted information was \inextricably intertwined\ with the records in which they were contained. The special master found that the department had improperly sought to transf

Judges: Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.