Login | December 22, 2024
Akron can conceal identity of some officers involved in police shooting
DAN TREVAS
Supreme Court
Public Information Office
Published: December 19, 2024
The city of Akron can continue to conceal the identities of eight police officers involved in a 2022 shooting of a motorist that drew widespread attention and protests, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled recently.
The Supreme Court partially granted a request by the Akron Beacon Journal to force Akron to turn over public records related to the June 2022 shooting death of Jayland Walker. However, the Court ruled the names of eight officers who fired their weapons can be redacted from records provided to the newspaper. The names of other officers involved in the Walker incident and two other police shootings in 2022 must be provided.
In a per curiam opinion, the Court noted that police incident reports and supplemental information gathered by officers are public under the Ohio Public Records Act. However, the law contains an exception for certain confidential law enforcement investigatory records. This exception allows information to be concealed if it creates a high probability of disclosing “the identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains.”
The Ohio attorney general presented evidence about the eight officers who shot at Walker to a grand jury, which declined to indict the officers with a crime. Because the officers could face a possible federal investigation, they are “uncharged suspects” under the law and their identities do not need to be released, the Court concluded.
The names of two officers involved in earlier 2022 shootings and the other officers involved in the Walker incident are not criminal suspects and their identities must be included in the newspaper’s records request.
Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined the per curiam opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only.
In an opinion concurring and dissenting in part, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote that she would not limit the order to releasing only the unredacted administrative leave or reinstatement notices. She would include the release of personnel files or any discipline records or internal investigations of the officers being investigated for the earlier shootings of James Gross and Lawrence Rodgers that occurred before the Walker shooting.
Justice Michael P. Donnelly joined Justice Brunner’s opinion.
City Released Partial Information Regarding Police Shootings
In June 2022, Akron police pursued Walker’s vehicle. Police believe Walker fired a gun from his car during the pursuit. Officers gave chase on foot once Walker’s car was stopped, and he ran. Officers shot and killed Walker.
The next day the Beacon Journal made numerous record requests, including for recordings of 911 calls and body camera footage of responding officers, including those from officers who used deadly force or chased Walker. The newspaper also asked for incident reports, supplemental notes of the investigating officers, witness statements, and narratives created by the department to describe the incident. Additionally, the Beacon Journal sought the personnel files of officers placed on administrative leave pending investigation of the shooting.
The city provided most of the information requested by the newspaper, but all the records redacted the names of the police officers involved.
Newspaper Investigates Other Police Shootings
The Walker request was the third made by the Beacon Journal in 2022 for a police-involved shooting.
In December 2021, James Gross broke into the home of his estranged wife. Police officers found Gross holding a knife to her neck. The police shot and killed Gross. In February 2022, the Beacon Journal requested the city provide the names of the officers involved in the shooting.
As the department was considering the records request, another police-involved shooting occurred. In early March 2022, police were called to the home of Lawrence Rodgers, who was armed and threatening another man with a gun. After repeatedly being told to drop his weapon, police shot and killed Rodgers. Before he died, Rodgers shot and killed the other man.
Shortly after Rodgers was shot, the newspaper requested “all incident reports and releasable documentation of the two recent officer-involved shootings.” The city provided written reports but did not identify the officers who shot Gross and Rodgers.
Weeks later, the Beacon Journal made an additional records request that was separated into four categories.
The newspaper wanted the personnel files, any disciplinary records, and any completed internal investigation files for an Officer Luke, who was identified in one of the Gross shooting incident reports. It also wanted those same records for unnamed “officers under investigation” relating to the Gross shooting, and those records for the Rodgers shooting. The fourth category was for “all administrative leave or reinstatement notices issued to any employees of the Akron Police Department” between December 2021 and mid-March 2022.
The city provided the files related to the named officer and sent the administrative leave and reinstatement notices. However, those notices did not include the names of any police officers. The city declined to provide the records related to investigations into the shooting of Gross and Rodgers.
After negotiating with the newspaper, the city provided the personnel files of the officers involved in the two shootings, but redacted the officers’ names. The city maintained it had a right to conceal the names because the officers have a constitutional right to prevent the release of private information that could lead to serious bodily harm or possible death.
When concealing the names of the officers involved in the Walker shooting, the city gave the same response that the release of the names would put the officers at risk of serious bodily harm or death.
Supreme Court Analyzed Records Law Regarding Release of Officer Names
In November 2022, the Beacon Journal sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, asking for an order to compel the city to release the records without redacting the names of the police officers.
Akron argued the Public Records Act requires the release of records, but does not cover requests for information. The request for the officers under investigation for the shooting of Gross and Rodgers is a request for information, not records, the city maintained.
The Court agreed. Asking for personnel files, discipline, and investigation records of unnamed officers is different than a records request for an identified person, the opinion noted. The Court ruled the request was an improper public records request because it was the equivalent of asking the city to identify the officers involved. By asking the city to reveal who was under investigation for the shootings of Gross and Rodgers, the Beacon Journal’s request was no different than asking the city for the names of the officers involved, the opinion stated.
“In both instances, the newspaper was requesting information – the names of the officers involved in the shooting,” the opinion stated.
However, the Court found the records request regarding all employees placed on leave and reinstated during the period in which the Gross and Rodgers shooting happened is a valid public records request, and the city must turn them over without redacting the names. The Court rejected the notion that more than two years after the incidents, officers faced a threat of serious harm for their roles in the shootings.
Exception Protects Names of Some Officers
The Court found all of the records requests the Beacon Journal made regarding the Walker shooting were valid, but the issue of whether the city had a legal right to redact the officers’ names needed to be resolved.
Under R.C. 149.43(A)(2), confidential law enforcement investigatory records are exempt from the Public Records Act and do not have to be released. The city cited a provision that allows for exempting the release of the names of uncharged suspects.
The Court noted that an “uncharged suspect” is an individual who either “is or was” the subject of a criminal investigation and that the likelihood of charges against a person does not determine whether a person continues to be an uncharged suspect.
“After becoming an uncharged suspect, a person continues to be an uncharged suspect until he or she has ‘either been arrested, cited, or otherwise charged with an offense,’” the Court stated, citing its 1980 State ex rel. Thompson Newspapers, Inc. v. Martin decision.
The grand jury did not indict the eight officers who shot at Walker, but that “does not foreclose a possible federal investigation,” the Court stated. Since the officers were criminally investigated and remain uncharged, they are uncharged suspects, under the Public Records Act, the Court concluded.
The reports provided by the city redacted the names of all the officers involved in the Walker incident. The Court ruled the city must provide the records to the Beacon Journal that only redact the names of the eight uncharged officers.
The case is cited 2022-1444. State ex rel. Copley Ohio Newspapers, Inc. v. Akron, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5677.