[Cite as State ex rel. Chatfield v. Flautt, 2011-Ohio-4659.]
COURT OF APPEALS
PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL, JUDGES:
JAMES CHATFIELD Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Relator Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- Case No. 11-CA-6
JOSEPH A. FLAUTT
OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus - Public Records
JUDGMENT: Denied
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 6, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
JAMES CHATFIELD JOSEPH A. FLAUTT
1580 State Route, 56 SW Perry County Prosecuting Attorney
P.O. Box 69 A#598109.00 111 N. High Street
Building D-4, Cubicle 169-B P.O. Box 569
London, Ohio 43140-0069 New Lexington, Ohio 43764-0569
Perry County, Case No. 11-CA-6 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Relator, James Chatfield, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
against Joseph Flautt, the Perry County Prosecuting Attorney, alleging failure to comply
with the Public Records Act.
{¶2} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C.
149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act.” State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible
Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843
N.E.2d 174, 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1).
{¶3} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) provides in part, “[T]he person allegedly aggrieved may
commence a mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders the public office or the
person responsible for the public record to comply with division (B) of this section. . .”
R.C. § 149.43.
{¶4} Relator filed a “request for justiciable finding for public records” with the
judge who sentenced him. The trial court issued an entry which provides in relevant
part, “The Columbus Police Department Division of Records shall provide to the
Defendant James L. Chatfield any and all records pertaining to the theft and
impoundment of a white Ford Explorer allegedly being driven by Christopher Carter.
Said records for the dates of November 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 and 30, 2008 shall be made
available. Said records were previously requested by the Defendant by a letter received
by the Division of Police on June 3, 2010.” (Judgment Entry 11/30/10, Case Nos. 09-
CR-0003 and 08-CR-0050, Perry County Common Pleas Court). Relator is currently
incarcerated.
Perry County, Case No. 11-CA-6 3
{¶5} The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, imposes restrictions upon
inmates seeking certain public records. R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides,
{¶6} “A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to
permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a juvenile
adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal
investigation or prosecution or concerning what would be a criminal investigation or
prosecution if the subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the
request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring
information that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge
who imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the
judge's successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is
necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.” R.C. §
149.43(B).
{¶7} As the Supreme Court has observed, ““R.C. 149.43(B)(4) clearly sets forth
heightened requirements for inmates seeking public records. The General Assembly's
broad language clearly includes offense and incident reports as documents that are
subject to the additional requirement to be met by inmates seeking records concerning
a criminal investigation or prosecution. The General Assembly clearly evidenced a
public-policy decision to restrict a convicted inmate's unlimited access to public records
in order to conserve law enforcement resources.” State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111
Ohio St.3d 409, 856 N.E.2d 966, 2006-Ohio-5858.
Perry County, Case No. 11-CA-6 4
{¶8} The order obtained by Relator from the trial court judge allows Relator to
obtain copies from the Columbus Police Department. Relator has failed to demonstrate
that Respondent is the “public office or person responsible” for the records ordered
released by the trial court judge. The order obtained clearly identifies the Columbus
Police Department as the public office in possession of the records approved for release
to Relator. For these reasons, Relator has not demonstrated Respondent has a clear
legal duty to provide the requested records. Therefore, the Complaint for writ of
mandamus is denied.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur
___________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
___________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
Perry County, Case No. 11-CA-6 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL, :
JAMES CHATFIELD :
:
Relator :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JOSEPH A. FLAUTT :
:
Respondent : Case No. 11-CA-6
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the Complaint for Writ of
Mandamus is denied. Costs to Relator.
___________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
___________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS