State ex rel. The Logan Daily News v. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. The Logan Daily News v. Jones, Sheriff. 2 [Cite as State ex rel. The Logan Daily News v. Jones (1997), 3 Mandamus to compel Sheriff of Hocking County to provide The Logan 4 Daily News access to incident reports -- Writ denied, when -- 5 Relator s request for attorney fees denied, when. 6 (No. 96-1630 -- Submitted March 4, 1997 -- Decided April 30, 1997.) 7 IN MANDAMUS. 8 On July 1 or 2, 1996, Clif Spires, assistant editor of relator, The Logan 9 Daily News, requested access to several incident reports from the office of Ohio St.3d .] 10 respondent, Hocking County Sheriff Jim Jones. Spires specifically requested 11 incident reports Nos. 96-0814, 96-0837, 96-0844, 96-0849, 96-0851, and 96-0879. 12 Chief Deputy Sheriff Thomas Wheeler refused to release incident report No. 96- 13 0814, purportedly because of an ongoing investigation in the case. Wheeler 14 further advised Spires that the remaining reports would not be released because 15 they were incomplete at that time. According to Sheriff Jones, his previous office 16 procedure of assigning an incident report number on receipt of a telephone call to 17 a police dispatcher rather than on completion and filing of the report had misled 18 relator into believing that incident reports existed prior to their creation. 1 On July 8, Spires requested access to the same incident reports. Wheeler 2 again denied access to incident report No. 96-0814 but told Spires that he would 3 retrieve the remaining reports, which would take a few minutes. After informing 4 Wheeler that he could not wait, Spires left without inspecting the reports. Spires 5 told Wheeler that he would return later. Wheeler pulled incident reports Nos. 96- 6 0837, 96-0844, 96-0849, 96-0851, and 96-0879, and left them with Sheriff Jones. 7 On July 9 or 10, relator s editor, Dwight Crum, telephoned the sheriff s 8 office and advised Sheriff Jones to provide access to the requested incident 9 reports. According to Sheriff Jones, he told Crum that following Spires s failure 10 to inspect the reports, the reports had been returned to Wheeler, who would not be 11 back until 3:30 p.m. When Wheeler returned, he attempted to contact Spires, but 12 was told he was gone for the day. 13 On July 11, Spires called the sheriff s office and requested the incident 14 reports yet another time. Wheeler again pulled all of the reports except No. 96- 15 0814, but Spires failed to go to the sheriff s office to inspect them. The next day, 16 relator filed this mandamus action to compel Sheriff Jones to provide access to 17 incident reports Nos. 96-0814, 96-0837, 96-0844, 96-0849, 96-0851, and 96-0879. 2 1 We granted an alternative writ. 76 Ohio St.3d 1475, 669 N.E.2d 858. Respondent 2 submitted evidence that included the requested incident reports. 3 The cause is now before this court for a consideration of the merits. 4 ____________________ 5 Frost & Jacobs and Richard M. Goehler, for relator. 6 Charles A. Gerken, Hocking County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 7 ____________________ 8 Per Curiam. Relator acknowledges that Sheriff Jones has now provided the 9 requested records. Consequently, relator s request for a writ of mandamus is moot 10 and is denied. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 11 N.E.2d 1049. 12 Relator requests attorney fees pursuant to Pennington. In Pennington, at the 13 syllabus, we held that [a] court may award attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43 14 where (1) a person makes a proper request for public records pursuant to R.C. 15 149.43, (2) the custodian of the public records fails to comply with the person s 16 request, (3) the requesting person files a mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43 17 to obtain copies of the records, and (4) the person receives the requested public 3 1 records only after the mandamus action is filed, thereby rendering the claim for a 2 writ of mandamus moot. 3 4 We may thus exercise our discretion and award attorney fees if the four Pennington factors are established. 5 Initially, we must determine whether relator made a proper request for 6 public records under R.C. 149.43. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel 7 compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio s Public Records Act. State ex rel. Master v. 8 Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 28, 661 N.E.2d 180, 184. The incident 9 reports requested by relator are not exempt from disclosure. State ex rel. Steckman 10 v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph five of the 11 syllabus ( Routine offense and incident reports are subject to immediate release 12 upon request. ). Therefore, relator s requests were proper. 13 In addition, the third and fourth Pennington requirements for an attorney fee 14 award are present here. Relator filed this mandamus action to obtain copies of the 15 requested records, and it received the records only after this action was filed. 16 Therefore, the dispositive issue is whether relator established the second 17 Pennington prerequisite for attorney fees in a public records action rendered moot 4 1 by disclosure of the records after filing, i.e., that Sheriff Jones failed to comply 2 with relator s records requests. 3 Sheriff Jones erroneously refused relator s requests to inspect and copy 4 incident report No. 96-0814. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether Sheriff 5 Jones refused to comply with relator s requests for access to the other five incident 6 reports. Relator was not entitled to incident reports prior to their completion. Cf. 7 State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 198, 580 N.E.2d 1085, 8 1086 ( The Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, does not require that a public office 9 create new documents to meet a requester s demand. ). In addition, the evidence 10 indicates that after these reports were completed, Sheriff Jones diligently 11 attempted to comply with relator s requests and that relator s failure to inspect the 12 reports was attributable to relator s inaction. See State ex rel. Leonard v. White 13 (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 516, 517, 664 N.E.2d 527, 528-529 ( In order to comply 14 with R.C. 149.43, custodians need only make public records available for 15 inspection at all reasonable times during regular business hours, and make copies 16 available upon request at cost, within a reasonable period of time. ). While relator 17 contends that it would not seem unreasonable for the sheriff s office to leave the 18 reports in the news media folder pursuant to a long-standing request *** to view 5 1 all reports, there is no indication that either of relator s representatives expressly 2 requested such placement of the reports by the sheriff s office. 3 Based on the foregoing, relator has not established that Sheriff Jones 4 refused to comply with its requests to inspect five of the six incident reports. 5 Accordingly, relator s action is largely meritless, and relator is not entitled to an 6 award of attorney fees. Pennington, supra; Leonard, 75 Ohio St.3d at 519, 664 7 N.E.2d at 530; State ex rel. Lewis v. Collins (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 1471, 669 8 N.E.2d 854. 9 10 Accordingly, we deny the writ of mandamus based on mootness and deny relator s request for attorney fees. 11 12 13 14 Writ denied. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgement only. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
