{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-15", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:5413c6", "proof": "sha256:f4ada0e4d2452718a9f26b757364419d36c26fcc2ee050e952ec06f786a823bf", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694", "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813", "para_814", "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818", "para_819", "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879", "para_880", "para_881", "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890", "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904", "para_905", "para_906", "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915", "para_916", "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926", "para_927", "para_928", "para_929", "para_930", "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941", "para_942", "para_943", "para_944", "para_945", "para_946", "para_947", "para_948", "para_949", "para_950", "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955", "para_956", "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961", "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968", "para_969", "para_970", "para_971", "para_972", "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985", "para_986", "para_987", "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992", "para_993", "para_994", "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001", "para_1002", "para_1003", "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012", "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023", "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037", "para_1038", "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045", "para_1046", "para_1047", "para_1048", "para_1049", "para_1050", "para_1051", "para_1052", "para_1053", "para_1054", "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060", "para_1061", "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065", "para_1066", "para_1067", "para_1068", "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075", "para_1076", "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084", "para_1085", "para_1086", "para_1087", "para_1088", "para_1089", "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095", "para_1096", "para_1097", "para_1098", "para_1099", "para_1100", "para_1101", "para_1102", "para_1103", "para_1104", "para_1105", "para_1106", "para_1107", "para_1108", "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111", "para_1112", "para_1113", "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118", "para_1119", "para_1120", "para_1121", "para_1122", "para_1123", "para_1124" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "ex rel. Harris v. Put-in-Bay Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3804.]", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "NOTICE", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "the opinion is published.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-3804", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "THE STATE EX REL. HARRIS v. PUT-IN-BAY POLICE DEPARTMENT.", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "may be cited as State ex rel. Harris v. Put-in-Bay Police Dept., Slip Opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "No. 2026-Ohio-3804.]", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—Relator failed to rebut public", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "office’s attestations that it provided him with all records responsive to his", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "public-records requests, and public office provided responsive records", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "within a reasonable time—Writ and relator’s requests for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "damages and court costs denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "(No. 2025-0367—Submitted September 16, 2025—Decided September 30, 2026.)", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "IN MANDAMUS.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "DEWINE, J., authored the opinion of the court, which FISCHER, DETERS,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in part and", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "dissented in part, with an opinion. BRUNNER, J., concurred in part and dissented in", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "part and would award relator $1,000 in statutory damages as to the March 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_28", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "DEWINE, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "{¶ 1} This is an original action in mandamus brought under the public-", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "records statute, R.C. 149.43. We are asked by Lionel Harris to direct the Put-in-", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Bay Police Department to provide him with copies of records responsive to two", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "public-records requests that Harris sent a year apart. Harris has not rebutted the", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "police department’s attestations that it provided all responsive records, so we deny", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "the writ.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "{¶ 2} Harris also seeks $2,000 in statutory damages and an award of court", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "costs, arguing that the department’s response time was unreasonable. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Harris has not demonstrated his entitlement to statutory damages by clear and", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "convincing evidence, we decline to award statutory damages. We also deny", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Harris’s request for court costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "{¶ 3} Harris is incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Complex. On", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "March 30, 2024, using a contraband cellphone that he had hidden under his", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "mattress, he accessed an email account associated with the name", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "louisethomaslt83@gmail.com. Harris caused an email from that address to be sent", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "to an email address at the Put-in-Bay Police Department that had been designated", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "to receive public-records requests: records@pibpolice.com. The email asked for", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "ten categories of documents, including the department’s records-retention schedule", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "and policy, personnel and payroll records of the police chief, budget materials, use-", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "of-force reports, the department’s booking-and-release policy, the current bond", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "register, and racism complaints against patrol officers.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "{¶ 4} Not surprisingly, given the unorthodox method of transmission, this", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "email ended up in a spam file in the police department’s email. No one at the police", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "department was aware of the email and Harris did nothing to follow up on his", "paragraph_id": "para_57", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "request.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "{¶ 5} On March 3, 2025, Harris allegedly penned another public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "request to the police department. This time, the request purports to have come from", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "an email account connected to his own name.1 In that email, Harris requested five", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "items: (1) “All administrative leave or reinstatements issued to any employees of", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "the Put-in-Bay Police Department from . . . September 2023 through September", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "2024”; (2) the “Annual Budget Report for 2024”; (3) the “Payroll record –", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "employee earnings for [the] current police chief from 2024 to present”; (4) “All", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "complaints against Put-in-Bay patrol officers for September 2023”; and (5) “All", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "use of force reports for September 2023.”", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "{¶ 6} Ten days after he sent the March 2025 request, Harris commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "this action, asking for a writ of mandamus ordering the police department to", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "respond to both requests. Harris attached to the mandamus complaint copies of", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "both his March 2025 request and the March 2024 request from the Louise Thomas", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "email account.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "{¶ 7} At that point, the police department searched its spam file and found", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "the Louise Thomas email. Within days of receiving the complaint, the police", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "department, through the village solicitor, issued written responses to both requests", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "and provided Harris with responsive records.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "{¶ 8} In the solicitor’s letter responding to the first request, Harris was", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "informed that the email had been “delivered directly into a spam file” within the", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "village’s email system and had “not [been] viewed by anyone” until after the police", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "department was served with Harris’s mandamus complaint. The solicitor provided", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "copies of responsive records for five of the ten requested items and stated that no", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "records exist that are responsive to Harris’s request for the records-retention", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "1. As discussed later, the screenshot submitted as evidence makes the exact email address hard to", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "decipher. The evidence submitted shows an email from “Lionel Ha…” to “records.”", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "schedule, the records-retention policy, the use-of-force reports, the booking-and-", "paragraph_id": "para_87", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "release policy, or racism complaints against village police officers.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "{¶ 9} The solicitor responded to Harris’s March 2025 public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "request in a separate letter, providing him copies of records responsive to his", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "request for the 2024 annual budget report and the police chief’s payroll record, and", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "explaining that no responsive records exist for the rest.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "{¶ 10} In response to Harris’s mandamus complaint, the police department", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "filed a motion to dismiss. We denied the motion, ordered the police department to", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "file an answer, and granted an alternative writ, setting the schedule for the parties’", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "submission of evidence and merit briefs. 2025-Ohio-1876.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "A. The Recent Amendments to R.C. 149.43(C) Do Not Apply", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "{¶ 11} The police department argues that recent amendments to Ohio’s", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, foreclose Harris from obtaining a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "mandamus or statutory damages. But those amendments—contained in 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Sub.H.B. No. 265 (effective Apr. 9, 2025) and 2025 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 96 (effective", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Sept. 30, 2025)—imposing additional procedural requirements for mandamus", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "actions and barring inmates from receiving statutory damages apply only", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "“prospectively to any mandamus action filed on or after” the date those", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "amendments became effective. State ex rel. Bates v. Jenkins, 2026-Ohio-1994,", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "¶ 19. Because Harris filed this action on March 13, 2025, before the amendments’", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "effective dates, the amendments do not apply. Id.2", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "B. Mandamus", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "{¶ 12} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "to issue in public-records cases when a relator shows that a respondent has failed", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "2. This opinion thus applies the version of the Public Records Act enacted in 2024 Sub.S.B. No. 29", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "(effective Oct. 24, 2024), unless otherwise noted.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "to comply with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B). See State ex rel. Parker Bey", "paragraph_id": "para_116", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "v. Byrd, 2022-Ohio-476, ¶ 9. The Public Records Act provides that “upon request", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "by any person, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "copies of the requested public record available to the requester at cost and within a", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). To obtain the writ, the requester", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the records", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "requested and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the public office to", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "provide them. Byrd at ¶ 9.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "{¶ 13} Harris has failed to establish that the police department did not comply", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "with the Public Records Act. The record demonstrates that the police department,", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "upon becoming aware of Harris’s initial request, promptly investigated its spam", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "system. It then located the request and provided Harris with responsive records and", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "a letter explaining the status of each requested item. It additionally responded", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "promptly to the March 2025 request, again providing responsive records and a letter", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "of explanation.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "{¶ 14} In response to the alternative writ, the police department included in", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "its submission of evidence affidavit testimony from one of its sworn peace officers", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "and from the village solicitor’s support specialist stating that all records responsive", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "to both of Harris’s public-records requests were produced to him. As a general rule,", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "once a public office has provided a public-records requester with copies of the", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "requested records, a mandamus claim is moot. State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose, 2024-", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Ohio-1909, ¶ 7. But Harris argues that the police department did not fully respond", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "to either request, so mootness does not apply and a writ of mandamus should issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "We turn next to that argument.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "1. Harris’s March 2024 Request", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "{¶ 15} In response to Harris’s March 2024 request, the police department", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "stated that the use-of-force reports and the booking-and-release policy requested by", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Harris do not exist. Harris argues that this response is “not credible,” asserting that", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "it is “unfathomable” that a modern police department would lack a booking-and-", "paragraph_id": "para_146", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "release policy and “unbelievable” that no use-of-force reports exist. He argues that", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "these types of reports are subject to disclosure under this court’s decision in State ex", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "rel. Standifer v. Cleveland, 2022-Ohio-3711.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "{¶ 16} Harris’s arguments are insufficient. To overcome the police", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "department’s affidavit evidence that all responsive records have been produced,", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Harris must present “clear and convincing evidence showing a genuine issue of fact", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "that additional responsive records exist,” State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty.", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Prosecutor, 2021-Ohio-623, ¶ 15. He has not done so. His arguments instead rest", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "solely on speculation, which is inadequate to establish the existence of additional", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "records. See State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2012-", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Ohio-4246, ¶ 16.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "{¶ 17} Harris’s reliance on Standifer also does not assist him. In that case,", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "use-of-force reports existed because officers were required to complete them under", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "departmental policy. See Standifer at ¶ 2-3. There is no evidence offered in this", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "case showing that the Put-in-Bay Police Department maintains a similar policy or", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "records. See State ex rel. Ware v. Akron Police Dept., 2025-Ohio-1198, ¶ 12", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "(distinguishing Standifer and denying writ because no evidence showed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "requested records existed). Harris has therefore failed to meet his burden as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "March 2024 request.", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "2. Harris’s March 2025 Request", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "{¶ 18} Harris likewise challenges the police department’s response to his", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "March 2025 request—specifically, its statement that no responsive records exist as", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "to his request for “administrative leave or reinstatement[]” records issued to", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "employees from September 2023 through September 2024. He relies on Wilson v.", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "Russo, 2022 WL 911271 (N.D.Ohio Mar. 29, 2022), in support of his argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "such records must exist.", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "{¶ 19} Harris’s reliance on Wilson is misplaced. That case, which arose out", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "of a federal civil-rights action, referred to a former Put-in-Bay police chief who had", "paragraph_id": "para_176", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "been placed on administrative leave in 2020. Id. at *1-2. The administrative leave", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "in Wilson occurred more than three years before the time frame covered by Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "request. Wilson does not provide clear and convincing evidence that responsive", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "records exist in this case for the requested period and with respect to the current", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "police chief. Accordingly, Harris has not satisfied his burden with respect to the", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "March 2025 request.", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "{¶ 20} Because Harris has failed to rebut the police department’s evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "that all responsive records have been produced for both of his public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "requests, he has not established a clear legal right to additional relief or a", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "corresponding duty on the part of the police department. Therefore, we deny his", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "request for a writ of mandamus.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "C. Statutory Damages", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "{¶ 21} Harris argues that he should recover statutory damages because the", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "police department unreasonably delayed in responding to both requests. R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "149.43(C)(2) permits an award of statutory damages when a requester establishes", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "that (1) he transmitted a public-records request by hand delivery, electronic", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "submission, or certified mail, (2) he made the request “to the public office or person", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "responsible for the requested public records,” (3) he fairly described the documents", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "being requested, and (4) the public office failed to comply with its obligations under", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(B). The public office’s obligations include making public records", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "available “within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "1. Statutory Damages for the March 2024 Request", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "{¶ 22} To be entitled to statutory damages, Harris must establish that he has", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "been aggrieved by the police department’s failure to comply with an obligation", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "imposed by the Public Records Act. R.C. 149.43(C)(3); Anderson v. Wilson, 2025-", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "Ohio-493, ¶ 12. It is Harris’s burden to “prov[e] his entitlement to statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "damages by clear and convincing evidence,” id. at ¶ 15. So here Harris must", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the police department failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_206", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "satisfy its obligation to make copies of public records available “within a reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "period of time,” R.C. 149.43(B)(1); see also State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland,", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "2024-Ohio-4822, ¶ 6.", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "{¶ 23} In enacting the Public Records Act, the General Assembly chose not", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "to provide a defined period (e.g., 30 days) by which a public office must respond", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "to a public-records request. Instead, it requires a response within a “reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "period of time,” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Reasonableness is a question for the fact-finder", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "that depends on an assessment of the public office’s conduct based on “all of the", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "pertinent facts and circumstances.” State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 2009-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "1901, ¶ 10; see also State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 2018-Ohio-5108,", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "¶ 16. Our caselaw instructs that our assessment of the reasonableness of the", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "response time properly considers the requester’s conduct because “R.C. 149.43", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "contemplates that the requester and the public-records custodian cooperate in", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "fulfilling a request.” Morgan at ¶ 18.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "{¶ 24} The police department responded to Harris’s March 2024 request 13", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "months after it was emailed. We have suggested that the absence of a response for", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "over a year, without justification, constitutes a violation of the timely response", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "requirement in R.C. 149.43(B)(1). See State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, 2022-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "205, ¶ 16-22. But based on the unique facts of this case, we conclude that Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "has failed to meet his burden of showing that the police department’s response time", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "was unreasonable.", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "{¶ 25} Here, the delay was not the result of any neglect or misfeasance by", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "the police department. Rather, the reason that the police department didn’t reply", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "more quickly to Harris’s request was because it was unaware of Harris’s request", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "since it had been diverted to a spam file. It was not unreasonable for the police", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "department to not respond to a request that it was unaware of having received. And", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "once it was made aware, it promptly responded.3", "paragraph_id": "para_235", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "{¶ 26} The concurring-and-dissenting opinion argues our decision in State", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "ex rel. Ware v. Akron, 2021-Ohio-624, “categorically reject[s]” our holding here.", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "Concurring-and-dissenting opinion, ¶ 88-93, 111. That case involved the delivery", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "of a public-records request by certified mail to the administrative assistant of the", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "public office; the administrative assistant died before informing anyone of the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "request. The public office did not respond to the request until nine months later,", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "once the requester filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. We rejected the public", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "office’s argument that it responded within a reasonable time, finding the death of", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "the assistant did not excuse the nine-month delay in responding to the certified-mail", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "request because the public office had been made aware of the request. See Ware,", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "2021-Ohio-624, at ¶ 18.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "{¶ 27} The concurring-and-dissenting opinion cites Ware, 2021-Ohio-624,", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "for the proposition that “the fact that the city misplaced the public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "did not relieve the city of its duty to provide the requested records within a", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "reasonable time” of the request’s transmission and that the police department here", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "similarly “lost track” of Harris’s email. Concurring-and-dissenting opinion at ¶ 89,", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "92. But that opinion’s own description of Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, proves our point.", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "To “misplace” or “lose track” of something, one must be aware of the thing in the", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "first place. The public office in Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, could misplace the request", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "only because it had been aware of the request in the first place. But that did not", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "happen here. When Harris’s email went to the spam file, nobody in the police", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "3. The concurring-and-dissenting opinion accuses us of creating a “found later” exception to the", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "Public Records Act. See concurring-and-dissenting opinion at ¶ 81-87, 111. We do no such thing.", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "While that opinion focuses on the duty to produce records “‘upon request’” (emphasis in original),", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "id. at ¶ 54, 83, quoting R.C. 149.43(B)(1), our review here is focused on whether that production", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "was done “within a reasonable time,” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). And whether a response was made within", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "a reasonable time “depends upon all of the pertinent facts and circumstances,” Morgan, 2009-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "1901, at ¶ 10, which certainly includes whether the public office was aware of the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "request in the first place.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "department was aware of its delivery, so the police department never “misplaced”", "paragraph_id": "para_267", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "or “lost track” of the email and it became aware of the request only when Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "filed this mandamus action, at which point the police department promptly", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "responded to the public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "{¶ 28} The concurring-and-dissenting opinion places the “responsibility for", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "the misdirection of Harris’s 2024 request” on the police department, speculating", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "misfeasance on the police department’s part based on how it “set the inbox-control", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "parameters on its public-records email account.” Concurring-and-dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "opinion at ¶ 95. But nothing in the record suggests the police department did", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "anything other than create an email address designated to receive public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "requests.4 And we don’t know exactly why Harris’s email went to the police", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "department’s spam file. But we do know the email contained a URL leading to a", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "different page and was sent from a contraband cellphone in a prison to a police", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "department, presumably from a phone that wasn’t registered to Harris, and from an", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "email account with someone else’s name. We also know that email addresses", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "without proper authentication or a legitimate sender history, or that contain URLs", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "as text leading to a different page, are some of the many triggers for a spam filter.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "See MailChimp, How Spam Triggers Impact Your Email Open Rates,", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "https://mailchimp.com/resources/spam-triggers/ (accessed Jan. 5, 2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/G5T6-YQCK]; Mailtrap, The Whys and the Hows of Email Spam", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "Filters (Feb. 16, 2024), https://mailtrap.io/blog/spam-filters/ (accessed", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "Aug. 22, 2026) [https://perma.cc/U8FS-TJNF].", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "{¶ 29} Given the numerous indicia of suspicion, it should not have come as", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "a surprise to Harris or anyone else that the email was diverted to a spam file. Yet,", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "4. The concurring-and-dissenting opinion goes further, arguing the police department “should have", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "changed the filter’s settings . . . to ensure legitimate emails, like Harris’s d[o] not inadvertently get", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "overlooked.” Concurring-and-dissenting opinion at ¶ 97. But no such duty appears in the Public", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "Records Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "for almost a year Harris did nothing to follow up or make sure that his request had", "paragraph_id": "para_297", "court_paragraph": 11 }, { "text": "been delivered. And as we have explained, “[a] public-records requester has an", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "obligation to cooperate with the public-records custodian[’s] fulfilling a request,", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "including an obligation to inform the public agency when [he] feels that a request", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "has been incomplete or slow.” State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 2015-Ohio-4914,", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "¶ 25.", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "{¶ 30} In sum, Harris has not met his burden of demonstrating by clear and", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "convincing evidence that the police department unreasonably delayed its response", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "to his request. Accordingly, considering all the “pertinent facts and circumstances,”", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Morgan, 2009-Ohio-1901, at ¶ 10, statutory damages are not warranted for the", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "March 2024 request.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "2. Statutory Damages for the March 2025 Request", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "{¶ 31} Statutory damages are likewise unwarranted for Harris’s March", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "2025 request. First, a requester seeking statutory damages must prove by clear and", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "convincing evidence the method of delivery of the request. State ex rel. McDougald", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-5100, ¶ 22. Harris has not met that burden. Unlike the", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "March 2024 request, the police department does not acknowledge that it received", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "Harris’s March 2025 request by email. Rather, the police department responded to", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Harris’s March 2025 request within days of receiving his mandamus complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "referring to the March 2025 request merely as “the communication attached as", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "Exhibit B to the Affidavit” in Harris’s complaint. The mere fact the police", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "department referred to Harris’s exhibit B as an “email,” see concurring-and-", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "dissenting opinion at ¶ 66, 68, doesn’t change the fact that the police department", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "has averred that it received the alleged communication only as an exhibit attached", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "to Harris’s complaint. And contrary to that opinion’s assertion otherwise, nowhere", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "does the police department admit it found the March 2025 request in its email", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "account. See id. at ¶ 73. While an employee for the police department does aver", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "that he discovered the March 2024 request in the department’s spam file, regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "the March 2025 request, this same employee states only that he worked to “assure", "paragraph_id": "para_327", "court_paragraph": 12 }, { "text": "that an appropriate response to the communication attached as Exhibit B” to", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Harris’s complaint was provided. Not once does he aver that he found the March", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "2025 request anywhere other than Harris’s mandamus complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "{¶ 32} Furthermore, while Harris has submitted a screenshot of what", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "purports to be an email, the screenshot lacks clear sender and recipient", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "information—it shows only that it was sent from “Lionel Ha. . . ” to “records,” with", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "the recipient’s email address appearing only in the body of the email, and does not", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "demonstrate that the email was actually sent to the police department. This is", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "significantly different from his March 2024 request, which clearly identifies in the", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "header of the email the email address from which Harris sent the request, the email", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "address to which the request was sent, a subject line, and an indicator that it was a", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "forwarded email. And Harris does not attest in the affidavit he submitted that he", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "sent the March 2025 request by email. Rather, he says only that he “made a second", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "public records request” in March 2025. This is in marked contrast to the previous", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "paragraph of his affidavit in which Harris expressly states that he “submitted an", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "electronic public records request” in March 2024. Thus, Harris has failed to meet", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "his burden to show that he transmitted the March 2025 public-records request by", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "email. See McDougald at ¶ 22 (a public-records requester seeking statutory damages", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "must prove the method of delivery by clear and convincing evidence).", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "{¶ 33} What is more, once the police department was served with Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "mandamus complaint and became aware of the public-records request, it responded", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "within days, providing responsive records on April 2, 2025. Under these", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "circumstances, Harris has not shown that the police department failed to respond to", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "his request within a reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "{¶ 34} But even if we were to take the concurring-and-dissenting opinion’s", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "position and assume that Harris emailed his request on March 3, we would still", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "conclude that Harris is not entitled to statutory damages because the police", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "department’s response time was not unreasonable. The police department", "paragraph_id": "para_357", "court_paragraph": 13 }, { "text": "responded to the request on April 2, 30 days after Harris’s alleged request. Whether", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "that response was within a reasonable time “depends upon all the pertinent facts", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "and circumstances,” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 2016-Ohio-8195,", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "¶ 23, citing Morgan, 2009-Ohio-1901, at ¶ 10, including “‘an opportunity on the", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "part of the public office to examine records prior to inspection in order to make", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "appropriate redactions of exempt materials,’” Kesterson, 2018-Ohio-5108, at ¶ 16,", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "quoting State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 1994-Ohio-5, ¶ 19. Here,", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Harris’s request was for multiple classes of records that spanned over a year. The", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "police department had to then determine which documents met the request and", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "which did not, including which records were exempt from disclosure under", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "statutory exceptions. So even if the police department did take 30 days to respond", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "to Harris’s request, its response time was reasonable given the circumstances. See", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Deters at ¶ 23; see also State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-8447,", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "¶ 22 (holding that “[w]hile 31 business days may appear to stretch the outer limits", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "of reasonableness,” that response time was nonetheless reasonable).", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "{¶ 35} Thus, even if we assume that Harris sent his request on March 3, the", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "police department’s response time was reasonable. We therefore deny Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "request for statutory damages for the March 2025 request.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "D. Court Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "{¶ 36} Harris also seeks an award of court costs in this action. Because we", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "deny the writ, Harris is not entitled to court costs. State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, 2024-", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Ohio-2827, ¶ 16. Regardless, Harris filed an affidavit of indigency in this case and", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "thus has not incurred any court costs. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "{¶ 37} We deny the writ and statutory damages for both the March 2024 and", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "March 2025 public-records requests. We also deny Harris’s request for an award of", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "court costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Writ denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_387", "court_paragraph": 14 }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "KENNEDY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "{¶ 38} “While there is some dispute whether Lady Justice should wear a", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "blindfold, the metaphor was surely never intended to suggest that justice disregards", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "the facts.” Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). Nor was it intended", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "to suggest that justice disregards the law. Unfortunately, the majority sees things", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "differently.", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "{¶ 39} This case presents straightforward questions of fact and law", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "regarding relator Lionel Harris’s entitlement to statutory damages for two public-", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "records requests that were not fulfilled by respondent, the Put-in-Bay Police", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Department, within a reasonable time. The majority denies Harris an award of", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "statutory damages for one of those requests because, it says, Harris has not proved", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "that he transmitted his request by hand delivery, certified mail, or electronic", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "submission. However, Harris and the police department both submitted evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "showing that Harris emailed the public-records request—something the department", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "has not contested. Copies of this evidence appear in this opinion so that readers", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "may decide for themselves.", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "{¶ 40} The majority then denies Harris an award of statutory damages for a", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "second request after assuming that Harris—and not the police department—", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "deserves the blame for the police department’s delay in finding the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "request. In doing so, the majority creates a new “found later” exception to Ohio’s", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "Public Records Act that is absent from R.C. 149.43 and has already been squarely", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "rejected by this court.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "{¶ 41} While I agree with the court’s judgment denying as moot Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "request for a writ of mandamus and denying Harris’s request for court costs, I", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "disagree with the majority’s decision denying Harris’s request for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "damages. Even though Harris’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot, his request", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "for statutory damages is not. State ex rel. Castellon v. Swallow, 2025-Ohio-5576,", "paragraph_id": "para_417", "court_paragraph": 15 }, { "text": "¶ 26. And Harris has met his statutory burden for such an award by showing that", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "both of his public-records requests were transmitted electronically and fairly", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "described the requested records and that the police department took an unreasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "amount of time to respond to his requests. Nothing more is required. Therefore, I", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "would award Harris statutory damages in the amount of $2,000. Since the majority", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "would rather turn a blind eye to the facts and the law, I concur in part and dissent", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "I. FACTS", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "{¶ 42} The police department established an email address for receiving", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "public-records requests: records@pibpolice.com.", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "{¶ 43} On March 30, 2024, Harris transmitted a public-records request to", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "that email address using a Google email account (“Gmail”). In the email’s subject", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "line, he titled the email “Public records request,” and he addressed the email to the", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "“Put in Bay Police department public Records Officer.” In that email, Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "requested ten records:", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "1. Put in Bay Police department’s most current records", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "retention schedule;", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "2. Personnel file of the Put in Bay chief of police James", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "Kimble (redacted in a manner consistent with R.C. 149.43);", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "3. Annual budget report for 2023;", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "4. Use of force reports for the department from 2022 to", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "present;", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "5. Current bond register;", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "6. Booking and release policy;", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "7. Payroll record – employee earnings for police chief James", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "Kimble from 2023 to present;", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "8. Employee sick leave/vacation records of James Kimble", "paragraph_id": "para_446", "court_paragraph": 16 }, { "text": "for 2023 to present;", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "9. Put in Bay Police department’s most current records", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "retention policy;", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "10. All complaints against Put in Bay patrol officers", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "accusing them of racism from September 2023 to present.", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Harris signed the email using his name and included his prison address where he", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "wanted the requested records to be sent. During this litigation, Harris admitted that", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "he transmitted that public-records request from prison using a contraband", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "cellphone.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "{¶ 44} On March 3, 2025, Harris transmitted another public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "to the police department using a different email account. This time, Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "requested five records:", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "1. All administrative leave or reinstatement issued to any", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "employees of the Put in Bay police department from the time frame", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "of September 2023 through September 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "2. Annual Budget Report for 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "3. Payroll record – employee earnings for current police", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "chief from 2024 to present.", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "4. All complaints against Put in Bay patrol officers for", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "September 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "5. All Use of force reports for September 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "{¶ 45} On March 13, 2025, Harris filed a complaint requesting a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "mandamus, court costs, and statutory damages related to his two public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "requests.", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "{¶ 46} On March 26, Yuri Linetsky—a commissioned and sworn peace", "paragraph_id": "para_473", "court_paragraph": 17 }, { "text": "officer who serves as a part-time officer for the police department and whose", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "administrative duties include “evaluating and responding to requests for public", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "records”—learned about the mandamus complaint. Linetsky states in an affidavit", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "that he then began reviewing the department’s public-records email account and", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "found Harris’s 2024 email requesting public records, a copy of which Harris had", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "attached as exhibit A to his mandamus complaint. Linetsky also found in the", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "department’s public-records email account Harris’s 2025 email requesting public", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "records, a copy of which Harris attached as exhibit B to his mandamus complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "{¶ 47} As soon as Linetsky found Harris’s emails, he analyzed them to", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "determine whether any of the requested records were excepted from disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "under the Public Records Act; he then identified and assembled responsive records", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "to the requests. According to Linetsky, his work was completed “within a matter", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "of days.”", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "{¶ 48} On April 2, in separate letters, counsel for the police department", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "responded to Harris’s 2024 and 2025 public-records requests. In response to the", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "2024 request, counsel admitted that the department had received Harris’s request", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "by email. The subject line of the letter states, “Response to your March 30, 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "email.” In the body of the letter, counsel says, “This email was received by the", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "Village of Put-in-Bay’s email system but delivered directly into a spam file. As a", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "result, the email was not viewed by anyone in the Village until after you filed your", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "petition in the above referenced matter.” Counsel then listed the public records that", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "Harris had requested and provided a response to each request. The letter and", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "responsive records were transmitted by regular and certified mail to Harris at the", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "prison address Harris had provided in his public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "{¶ 49} In response to Harris’s 2025 public-records request, counsel", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "admitted that the police department had received Harris’s request by email. This", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "admission is apparent from the letter that counsel sent to Harris, a portion of which", "paragraph_id": "para_502", "court_paragraph": 18 }, { "text": "is shown below:", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "The subject line of the letter states, “Response to your March 3, 2025 email.” And", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "in the body of the letter, counsel says, “This is a response to your March 3, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "email, in which you requested copies of the following records . . . .” Counsel then", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "listed the public records that Harris had requested and provided a response to each", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "request. The letter and responsive records were transmitted by regular and certified", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "mail to Harris at the prison address he had provided in his public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "II. LAW AND ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "A. Statutory Damages under Ohio’s Public Records Act", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "{¶ 50} Subject to an exception not relevant here, “upon request by any", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "person, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make copies", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "of the requested public record available to the requester at cost and within a", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1).5", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "5. The General Assembly has recently amended R.C. 149.43, most notably in 2024 Sub.H.B. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "265 (effective Apr. 9, 2025). This opinion applies the versions of the statute enacted in 2023", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "{¶ 51} A public-records requester is “entitled to recover [an] amount of", "paragraph_id": "para_520", "court_paragraph": 19 }, { "text": "statutory damages” if he or she meets certain statutory requirements and the public", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "office fails to comply with its statutory duties. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Specifically, a", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "public-records requester must show by clear and convincing evidence, State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "Anderson v. Wilson, 2025-Ohio-493, ¶ 15, that (1) he or she transmitted the request", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "by a qualifying method, (2) he or she fairly described the requested records, and (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "the public office did not provide the requested records within a reasonable time,", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Qualifying transmissions include hand delivery, certified mail,", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "and electronic submission. Id. If the public-records requester satisfies his or her", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "burden, an award of statutory damages under the Public Records Act is compulsory:", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "“the requester shall be entitled to recover . . . statutory damages” (emphasis added),", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "id.", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "{¶ 52} The amount of damages a public-records requester may receive is", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "limited to “one hundred dollars for each business day” from the date the requester", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to the day the public office complies with", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "its statutory obligations under the Public Records Act. Id. In all, a requester may", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "receive “a maximum of one thousand dollars” per request. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "{¶ 53} The Public Records Act provides only one circumstance in which", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "“[t]he court may reduce an award of statutory damages or not award statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "damages.” (Emphasis added.) Id. To reduce or not award statutory damages, the", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "court must decide that “a well-informed” public-records custodian would", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "reasonably believe that the conduct of the public office or person responsible for", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "the requested public records (1) “did not constitute a failure to comply with an", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)]” and (2) “would serve the public", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as permitting that conduct.” R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b). Both prongs must be met.", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "Sub.H.B. No. 33 (effective Oct. 3, 2023) and 2024 Sub.S.B. No. 29 (effective Oct. 24, 2024); those", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "versions are substantially similar.", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "{¶ 54} When the court is faced with the question whether a public office", "paragraph_id": "para_550", "court_paragraph": 20 }, { "text": "produced requested records within a reasonable time, the answer turns on “all the", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "pertinent facts and circumstances,” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters,", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "2016-Ohio-8195, ¶ 23, such as the efforts made by the public office to respond, the", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "frequency and number of requests made by the requester, the volume of responsive", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "records that were requested and produced, the difficulty of conducting the search", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "for the requested records, and the need for redactions, see State ex rel. Shaughnessy", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-8447, ¶ 22. However, because R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "the production of public records “upon request” (emphasis added), “the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "measures reasonableness of the response time by reference to the date of the", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "request” (emphasis added), State ex rel. Howard v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-3399, ¶ 33.", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "B. Harris Is Entitled to Statutory Damages", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "{¶ 55} As explained above, to be entitled to statutory damages, Harris must", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "establish by clear and convincing evidence only that he has transmitted a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "records request by hand delivery, certified mail, or electronic submission; that he", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "fairly described the requested records; and that the public office did not provide", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "him with the requested records within a reasonable time. See R.C. 149.43(C)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "{¶ 56} The police department does not dispute that Harris “fairly described”", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "the requested records. And Linetsky and counsel for the department admit that", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "Harris transmitted both public-records requests by a qualifying transmission—", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "email. Lastly, based on Linetsky’s averments that he reviewed and compiled the", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "responsive records to both requests within “a matter of just days” of being made", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "aware of them, the department did not provide Harris with the requested records", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "within a reasonable time of the requests’ being made. Harris is therefore entitled", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "to statutory damages for both public-records requests.", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "{¶ 57} Nevertheless, the majority denies Harris damages for both public-", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "records requests. Concerning the 2024 request, the majority claims that the police", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "department responded within a reasonable time after it found the request in its", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "spam-email folder. Similarly, the majority says that Harris is not entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_580", "court_paragraph": 21 }, { "text": "damages for his 2025 request because he has not proved that he transmitted that", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "request electronically.", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "{¶ 58} After examining this court’s caselaw and the evidence submitted by", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "both parties, it is apparent that the majority’s conclusions are unreasonable. For", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "ease of discussion, I address the public-records requests in reverse order.", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "C. Harris’s March 3, 2025 Public-Records Request", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "1. Harris Is Entitled to Statutory Damages for the Request", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "{¶ 59} In arguing that Harris is not entitled to statutory damages for his", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "March 3, 2025 public-records request, the police department claims that Harris did", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "not prove that the time it took the department to respond to the request was", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "unreasonable. However, Linetsky admitted that he learned of the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "request on March 26, 2025, after Harris filed the mandamus complaint. He", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "admitted that he then reviewed the department’s email system and found both the", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "2024 and the 2025 requests. He admitted that it took him only a matter of days to", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "compile the records that Harris asked for in both requests. And he admitted that", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "the records responsive to both requests were sent to Harris on April 2, 2025.", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "{¶ 60} That means the department could have responded to Harris’s March", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "3, 2025 request by March 10. Therefore, when measured from the time the request", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "was sent, the amount of time that it took the department to respond to Harris’s 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "request—30 days—was patently unreasonable. See Howard, 2023-Ohio-3399, at", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "¶ 33.", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "{¶ 61} It strains credulity to think that Linetsky—the person responsible for", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "responding to public-records requests sent to the police department—did not find", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "or even know about either public-records request until he learned of Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "mandamus complaint “[o]n or about March 26, 2025.” The fact that it took almost", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "a month for Linetsky, whose job it is to respond to emailed public-records requests,", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "to find Harris’s March 2025 request languishing in the department’s inbox is", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "troubling. Apparently, the department does not regularly check its public-records-", "paragraph_id": "para_610", "court_paragraph": 22 }, { "text": "request email account to make a good-faith effort to respond to such requests within", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "a reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "{¶ 62} Regardless, Linetsky’s affidavit shows that the police department", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "did not comply with its obligation under R.C. 149.43(B) to provide Harris with the", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "requested records within a reasonable time. The department could have produced", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "the records in a matter of days, so a month is too long.", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "{¶ 63} Because the police department’s contention that its response time", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "was reasonable is quickly dismissed by its own witness’s averment, the majority", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "creates a new argument to deny Harris statutory damages for his March 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "public-records request. It says that Harris is not entitled to damages for that request", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "because Harris failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he transmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "the request by hand delivery, certified mail, or electronic submission. See majority", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "opinion, ¶ 30.", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "{¶ 64} Hogwash. It is right there in the evidentiary record.", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "{¶ 65} First, Harris attached a screenshot of his public-records request as", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "exhibit B to his complaint:", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "That exhibit is a copy of a sent email. The dateline says it was sent “4 days ago,”", "paragraph_id": "para_629", "court_paragraph": 23 }, { "text": "and there are options to forward and reply to the email. As anyone with an email", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "account knows, none of those items would be present on an unsent email. The", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "sender is “Lionel Ha . . . ,” which obviously refers to Harris because his name is in", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "the body of the email message.", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "{¶ 66} But even if there were some factual questions about this email, the", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "police department admits that it received the email. In his affidavit, a portion of", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "which is shown below, Linetsky referred to Harris’s exhibit B as an email:", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "{¶ 67} The police department’s counsel similarly admitted that Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_639", "court_paragraph": 24 }, { "text": "transmitted his March 2025 public-records request by email. It is worth seeing the", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "relevant portion of that letter a second time:", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "{¶ 68} Again, the letter says, “Response to your March 3, 2025 email” in", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "the subject line. And the body of the letter says, “This is a response to your March", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "3, 2025 email, in which you requested copies of the following records . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "{¶ 69} As this evidence shows, it is simply beyond dispute that Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "transmitted his March 2025 public-records request by email. The majority’s", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "contrary conclusion clearly and convincingly has no evidentiary basis whatsoever,", "paragraph_id": "para_649", "court_paragraph": 25 }, { "text": "and it is manifest that the majority has not examined the record closely enough.", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "{¶ 70} Since Harris transmitted his March 3, 2025 public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "by email, fairly described the records sought, and has proved that the police", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "department did not provide him with those records within a reasonable time, he is", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "entitled to statutory damages for that request.", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "2. The Police Department’s Admissions Prove Harris’s Case", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "{¶ 71} The majority’s assertions about this opinion are beyond perplexing.", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "The police department’s own admissions against interest make Harris’s case.", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "{¶ 72} As explained above, the police department admitted that Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "transmitted his 2025 public-records request electronically. Linetsky admitted that", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "he found Harris’s 2025 request in the department’s public-records email account", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "23 days after Harris transmitted it to the police department.", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "{¶ 73} That admission does not beg the question that the majority asks: Did", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "Harris transmit his request by electronic means? Rather, it begs the question: In", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "which folder of the police department’s public-records-request email account was", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "Harris’s 2025 public-records request sitting for 23 days—was Harris’s request in", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "the inbox, or was it in the spam-email folder? Linetsky does not say. He admits", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "only that he found the 2025 request in the police department’s public-records email", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "account. And the only way the request could have ended up in an email account is", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "if it was electronically submitted in an email.", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "{¶ 74} Counsel for the police department also stated in her letter to Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "that she was responding to Harris’s March 3, 2025 email request for public records.", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "Notably, counsel did not state that she was responding to Harris’s mandamus", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "action. Moreover, even if one could interpret counsel’s letter as responding to", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Harris’s mandamus action, counsel admitted in that letter that Harris’s request was", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "transmitted by a qualifying method, “electronic submission,” R.C. 149.43(C)(2),", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "because she admitted that Harris’s request was transmitted by email.", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "{¶ 75} Additionally, Linetsky admits that after finding Harris’s public-", "paragraph_id": "para_679", "court_paragraph": 26 }, { "text": "records request, it took him only seven days to review the request, determine", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "whether any of the requested records were exempt from disclosure, identify and", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "assemble the records, and provide the records to the police department’s counsel", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "for release to Harris. And during the same seven days, Linetsky did the same for", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "Harris’s 2024 public-records request. Therefore, Harris received the records", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "responsive to both his public-records requests seven days after Linetsky discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "the requests in the police department’s email account. Given these admissions, it", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "is beyond the pale for the majority to assert (1) that there is no evidence that the", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "2025 request was transmitted electronically and (2) that taking 30 days to respond", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "to Harris’s request was reasonable. See majority opinion at ¶ 31-35. Indeed, the", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "only way for the majority to reach those conclusions is to disregard all respondent’s", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "admissions to the contrary regarding the former and conveniently ignore all", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "evidence as to the latter. But picking and choosing evidence to fit a desired outcome", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "is not the role of the judiciary.", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "{¶ 76} If the majority has considered “‘all the pertinent facts and", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "circumstances,’” id. at ¶ 34, quoting Deters, 2016-Ohio-8195, at ¶ 23, then in", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "conjunction with the police department’s admissions, the majority must conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "that Harris is entitled to statutory damages for his 2025 public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "D. Harris’s March 30, 2024 Public-Records Request", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "{¶ 77} As with the March 2025 public-records request, Linetsky and the", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "police department’s counsel admit that Harris transmitted his March 30, 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "request by email, and the department does not contend that Harris failed to fairly", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "describe the requested records. Further, the department took an unreasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "amount of time to respond to the 2024 request. The Public Records Act “measures", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "reasonableness of the response time by reference to the date of the request,”", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "Howard, 2023-Ohio-3399, at ¶ 33, and here, Harris’s 2024 request sat in the", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "department’s spam-email folder for over a year before being discovered. Since it", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "took only a matter of days for Linetsky to compile the requested records once the", "paragraph_id": "para_709", "court_paragraph": 27 }, { "text": "email was found, the department’s delay of over a year in responding to the request", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "was plainly unreasonable.", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "{¶ 78} The police department advances a novel theory in support of not", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "awarding statutory damages to Harris for his March 2024 public-records request: it", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "claims that Harris is not entitled to statutory damages because the Gmail account", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "he used to send that request was set up using the name “Louise Thomas.” The", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "department argues that since the mandamus complaint does not contain any", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "allegation that Harris was authorized to use the Gmail account associated with", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "Thomas’s name, Harris is not entitled to statutory damages for the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "request he sent from that account. However, that argument is meritless.", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "{¶ 79} There is no statutory requirement that when a person transmits a", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "public-records request electronically, he or she must submit it from an email", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "account that bears his or her name. In fact, unless required by state or federal law,", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "Ohio’s Public Records Act specifically prohibits any public office or person", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "responsible for public records to “condition the availability of public records by", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "requiring disclosure of the requester’s identity.” R.C. 149.43(B)(4).", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "{¶ 80} Not to be deterred, the police department takes another tack, arguing", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "that since Harris’s March 2024 public-records request ended up in the department’s", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "spam-email folder, the time for responding to the request began when the email was", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "found. The department notes that it quickly responded to Harris’s March 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "request upon discovering the email. The majority expounds on the department’s", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "reasoning, holding that Harris is not entitled to statutory damages for the 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "request since the department responded within a reasonable time of finding his", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "misplaced email. See majority opinion at ¶ 24-25.", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "{¶ 81} There are only two ways to characterize the majority’s ruling today.", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "Either it is rewriting R.C. 149.43 by starting the clock when the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "request is found rather than when the request was made or it is judicially creating a", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "new “found later” exception to the Public Records Act for electronic transmissions.", "paragraph_id": "para_739", "court_paragraph": 28 }, { "text": "However it is characterized, the majority is wrong.", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "{¶ 82} First, R.C. 149.43 begins the clock for determining reasonableness", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "at the date of the request. Second, the statute provides no applicable exception for", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "the department. Third, in my opinion, this court has previously rejected the", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "argument that misplacing a public-records request relieves a public office of its duty", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "under the Public Records Act to respond to that request within a reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "Fourth, the majority’s newly minted “found later” exception makes the requester,", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "rather than the public office, bear the consequences of a custodian’s negligence in", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "misplacing a public-records request. And fifth, the majority’s ruling invites", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "speculation.", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "1. When the Clock Starts under R.C. 149.43", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "{¶ 83} As stated above, R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires the production of public", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "records “upon request.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, “the statute measures", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "reasonableness of the response time by reference to the date of the request”", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "(emphasis added), Howard, 2023-Ohio-3399, at ¶ 33, not the date a public office", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "finds the request.", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "2. No Applicable Statutory Exception", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "{¶ 84} Also as stated above, statutory damages are available if the requester", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "fairly describes the requested records, transmits the request electronically, and", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "shows that the public office did not respond to that request within a reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Importantly, to “transmit” something is to “send” it, Webster’s", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "Third New International Dictionary (2002), which is dissimilar from “find,” id. (“to", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "come upon accidently…[or] by searching or effort”). Therefore, under the statute’s", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "plain language, the availability of statutory damages does not depend on the records", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "custodian’s finding the request.", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "{¶ 85} Further, nothing in the text of the Public Records Act expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "excuses a public-records custodian from fulfilling a public-records request that is", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "not found for over a year. The statute contains an extensive and comprehensive list", "paragraph_id": "para_769", "court_paragraph": 29 }, { "text": "of exceptions that preclude the release of records, see R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a) through", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "(ss), and it also includes provisions that reduce statutory damages or deny them", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "altogether in some circumstances, see R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b). But R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "149.43 “mandates access to public records upon request unless the requested", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "records are specifically excepted from disclosure.” State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2000-Ohio-282, ¶ 12, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "department’s situation does not fit within one of the statutory exceptions. Nor is", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "there a “found later” exception in the Public Records Act for emails.", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "{¶ 86} Although the majority seemingly views R.C. 149.43 as an evolving", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "document in need of adaption to the modern era, there is no need to bring it in line", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "with the times. The General Assembly clearly envisioned the electronic age since", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2) lists an “electronic submission” as a qualifying transmission.", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "And even if a “found later” exception for electronic submissions is a good idea, “[a]", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "judicially created ‘good sense’ rule does not except a public record from disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "under R.C. 149.43,” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 2008-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "1770, paragraph three of the syllabus.", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "{¶ 87} In the end, creating a “found later” exception to the duty to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "copies of public records when such an exception does not appear in the statute is", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "nothing more than a blatant exercise of judicial activism, “thrust[ing] the judiciary", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "into the role of law maker,” Stefanie A. Lindquist, Judicial Activism in State", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "Supreme Courts: Institutional Design and Judicial Behavior, 28 Stan.L. & Pol’y", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "Rev. 61, 67 (2017).", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "3. This Court’s Precedent Squarely Rejects a “Found Later” Exception", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "{¶ 88} Moreover, in my view, this court has already categorically rejected", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "a “found later” exception to the Public Records Act. In State ex rel. Ware v. Akron,", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "a person requested records from the Akron Police Department in February 2019 by", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "certified mail. 2021-Ohio-624, ¶ 2-3. The person who signed for the mail was ill", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "and subsequently died, and a “City-wide cyber-event . . . left email communication", "paragraph_id": "para_799", "court_paragraph": 30 }, { "text": "between city departments practically unusable.” Id. at ¶ 5. Consequently, the", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "respondents in the case, the City of Akron and its police chief (“the city”), were", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "unaware of the requests until the requester filed his complaint for a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "mandamus in October 2019. Id. at ¶ 2, 4-5. Upon becoming aware of the requests,", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "the city responded within four days. Id. at ¶ 6. The city acknowledged that a nine-", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "month delay in responding to the requests was unreasonable but asked this court", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "“to excuse its failure to respond timely” since the city did not know about the", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "requests until after receiving the complaint. Id. at ¶ 18.", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "{¶ 89} This court rejected Akron’s argument, decided that the city had", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "violated the Public Records Act, and awarded the requester statutory damages. As", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "the court explained, “statutory-damages awards under the Public Records Act are", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "not contingent on the good or bad faith of the public-records custodian. Rather,", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "under R.C. 149.43(C)(2), statutory damages are mandatory whenever a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "records custodian fails to comply with her obligation.” Id. Therefore, the fact that", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "the city misplaced the public-records request did not relieve the city of its duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "provide the requested records within a reasonable time of their transmission.", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "{¶ 90} Following the caselaw established by Ware makes deciding this case", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "easy. Indeed, the only material variation between the situation in Ware and the one", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "here is that Ware concerned a transmission sent by certified mail while Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "transmitted his request via email.", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "{¶ 91} I categorically reject the argument that how Harris transmitted his", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "request changes the analysis. R.C. 149.43(C)(2) does not distinguish between", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "certified mail and electronic submissions; it classifies both as qualifying methods", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "of transmission warranting the same consideration for statutory damages. After all,", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "“[t]he principle does not change because the [request] has gone from the physical", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "to the virtual world.” Moody v. NetChoice, L.L.C., 603 U.S. 707, 716 (2024)", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "(discussing regulation of internet-based social-media platforms versus", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "“[t]raditional publishers and editors” in the context of the First Amendment). An", "paragraph_id": "para_829", "court_paragraph": 31 }, { "text": "email is just electronic mail.", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "{¶ 92} Consequently, Ware forecloses what the majority does here because", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "in Ware, this court held that even with a misplaced request, the date to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "the reasonableness of the custodian’s response is not the date when the request was", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "found. See Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, at ¶ 18. Accordingly, following Ware, this court", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "should not “excuse [the police department’s] failure to respond timely” to Harris’s", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "request, id. at ¶ 18. Like in Ware, the police department indisputably received", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "Harris’s March 2024 public-records request but lost track of it. Like in Ware, the", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "department has an excuse for not locating the request sooner, but that excuse is", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "irrelevant because statutory-damages awards are not contingent on the good or bad", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "faith of the public-records custodian. So, like in Ware, statutory damages are", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "available to Harris because the department’s long delay in responding to the request", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "was unreasonable.", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "{¶ 93} Because this court already rejected the “found later” exception in", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "Ware, the court should reject that argument here and not revisit it simply because", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "Harris utilized a different qualifying method of transmission.", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "4. The Majority Blames the Requester", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "{¶ 94} In creating a “found later” exception, the majority suggests that it is", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "Harris’s fault that his public-records request was misdirected to the department’s", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "spam-email folder. See majority opinion at ¶ 28. But a public-records requester", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "has no control over whether a public office will misplace a public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "upon receiving it.", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "{¶ 95} This is apparent here, as the responsibility for the misdirection of", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "Harris’s 2024 request into the spam-email folder falls on the police department.", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "The department, not Harris, set the inbox-control parameters on its public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "email account. If this court is to consider “all the ‘pertinent facts and", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "circumstances,’” id. at ¶ 30, quoting State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 2009-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "1901, ¶ 10, then it must acknowledge that an email account’s owner has control", "paragraph_id": "para_859", "court_paragraph": 32 }, { "text": "over the email account, including its security settings—from no filtering (delivering", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "every email to the inbox) to the most restrictive filtering (delivering to the inbox", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "only emails from a saved list of senders), and every security setting in between. See", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "Google, Add Custom Spam Filters to Gmail, https://support.google.com", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "/a/answer/2368132?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-custom-spam-filters-are-applied%2C", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "filter-behavior-with-multiple-filters (accessed Feb. 5, 2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/9GVU-9FS9]; Microsoft, Change the Level of Protection in the", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "Junk Email Filter in Outlook, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "the-level-of-protection-in-the-junk-email-filter-in-outlook-e89c12d8-9d61-4320-", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "8c57-d982c8d52f6b (accessed Feb. 4, 2026) [https://perma.cc/S88E-FNCK];", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "Beverly Michaelis, Zero Tolerance for E-Filing Errors: Avoid Committing", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "Malpractice, with a Few Clicks of Your Mouse, 72 Or.St.B.Bull. 46, 49 (2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "{¶ 96} Harris plainly cannot adjust the “triggers” for the police", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "department’s spam filter, see majority opinion at ¶ 28. Since the sender of an email", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "(here, the public-records requester) has no control over the security settings of the", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "receiving account (here, the police department’s public-records email account), we", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "should not “let recipients of emailed notices avoid deadlines by blaming spam", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "filters or other security devices on the recipient’s side of the communication,”", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "Balzer v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 2026 IL App (1st)", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "232227, ¶ 53.", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "{¶ 97} Because the police department controls which public-records-", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "request emails are classified as spam by its email system, it cannot absolve itself of", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "the responsibility it faces under the Public Records Act for taking over a year to", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "respond to Harris’s March 2024 public-records request, merely because its spam", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "filter was too sensitive and it did not find the email sooner. Rather than blame", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "Harris for the delayed response, the department should have changed the filter’s", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "settings or been vigilant in periodically checking its spam-email folder to ensure", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "legitimate emails, like Harris’s, did not inadvertently get overlooked. This is", "paragraph_id": "para_889", "court_paragraph": 33 }, { "text": "especially true of an email account set up for the purpose of receiving public-", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "records requests, like the one here. The department’s failure to show up, do its job,", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "and check the entirety of such an email account shows a lack of cooperation that", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "does not constitute even an attempt to respond to Harris’s request within a", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "5. The Majority’s Speculation", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "{¶ 98} As noted above, the misplacement of a public-records request does", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "not absolve a public office of its statutory duty to respond to that request within a", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "reasonable time of its transmission. Therefore, this court need not guess why", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "Harris’s email was misplaced in the spam-email folder—that is irrelevant.", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "However, that does not stop the majority from speculating how this occurred.", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "{¶ 99} The majority admits that “we don’t know exactly why the email went", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "to the police department’s spam file.” Majority opinion at ¶ 28. Even though the", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "department has the burden to prove that an exception under the Public Records Act", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "applies to its delayed response in this case, see State ex rel. Lawrence v. Dept. of", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "Rehab. & Corr., 2026-Ohio-509, ¶ 31, and even though it asks this court to", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "essentially adopt an exception based on the settings of its own spam filter, it has", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "presented no evidence about those settings.", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "{¶ 100} However, the majority digs deeper, speculating that Harris’s March", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "2024 public-records request could have been classified as spam by the police", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "department’s email system for a number of reasons, e.g., because he emailed his", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "request from a contraband cellphone while in prison, because he used an email", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "address affiliated with someone else’s name, because the email address he used", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "lacked “proper authentication,” or because there was no “legitimate sender history”", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "associated with the email address. See majority opinion at ¶ 28. But these are", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "nothing more than red herrings.", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "{¶ 101} Take the majority’s hunch that the contraband cellphone “wasn’t", "paragraph_id": "para_918", "court_paragraph": 34 }, { "text": "registered to Harris,” id. at ¶ 28. The Public Records Act does not require a person", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "to transmit a request using his or her own phone or computer. It requires only that", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "the requester use a qualifying means of transmission. Moreover, the majority", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "cannot even point to an FAQ somewhere that suggests that using a cellphone that", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "is registered to a different person to send an email could trigger a spam filter. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "hard to imagine that a spam filter could discern that an email was sent by someone", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "using a contraband cellphone, rather than a legitimately owned cellphone or a", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "computer. Common sense dictates that that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "Harris may face collateral consequences for having and using a contraband", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "cellphone while in prison, but the denial of statutory damages in a public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "case is not one of them.", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "{¶ 102} The majority next suggests that Harris triggered the spam filter by", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "sending an email “from an email account with someone else’s name,” id. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "the majority fails to explain how a spam filter would weed out emails in which the", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "signature in the email’s body conflicts with the name in the email’s address. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "common knowledge that many email platforms, including Gmail, allow users to", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "create and send emails from an email account that does not identify the user by his", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "or her legal name. Google Account Help, About Your Legal Name & Your Google", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "Account, https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/15566315?hl=en (accessed", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "July 6, 2026) [https://perma.cc/LAD2-V8UP] (“Your legal name isn’t necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "the same as your display name. Your display name is the name you chose to use", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "when you created your Google Account.”). While Google does require a legal", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "name when setting up a Gmail account, a person’s display name does not need to", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "be his or her legal name. See id.; Google Account Help, Create a Google Account,", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/27441?sjid=15629715549374917244", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "-NC (accessed July 6, 2026) [https://perma.cc/N8SM-ZRER]. And a person’s", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "“legal name will only be visible to others in . . . the Ads Transparency Center if [he", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "or she] purchase[s] Google Ads [or] [i]n the Play Store if [he or she is] a developer", "paragraph_id": "para_948", "court_paragraph": 35 }, { "text": "of a published app.” About Your Legal Name & Your Google Account,", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/15566315?hl=en. Neither of those", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "apply here, meaning the department’s filtering system can only see the display", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "name for any Gmail email it receives, not the legal name of the Gmail account", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "holder.", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "{¶ 103} Therefore, it makes little sense for the majority to suggest that", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "Harris’s March 2024 email was classified by the police department’s email-filtering", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "system as “spam” simply because the email account’s display name was not", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "Harris’s legal name.", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "{¶ 104} Next, the majority assumes that the police department’s spam-", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "email filter may have been triggered because the email address from which Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "sent his public-records request may have lacked “proper authentication,” majority", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "opinion at ¶ 28. This assumption is at least somewhat supported by a Mailchimp", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "FAQ cited by the majority. See id. The problem is that the majority offers nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "but speculation that the email account associated with Thomas’s name had not been", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "authenticated. And the majority does not explain how a Gmail account from which", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "an email has been sent could even be unauthenticated. The Mailchimp FAQ", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "explains that “[t]echnical factors like missing or incorrect SPF (Sender Policy", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "Framework), DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail), or DMARC (Domain-based", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) records signal to email", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "providers that your message might not be legitimate.” MailChimp, How Spam", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "Triggers Impact Your Email Open Rates, https://mailchimp.com/resources/spam-", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "triggers/ (accessed Jan. 5, 2026) [https://perma.cc/G5T6-YQCK]. It is highly", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "doubtful that an email platform serving millions of people would be unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "produce authenticated emails. Surely its network administrators understand SPF,", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "DKIM, and DMARC records better than the majority.", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "{¶ 105} The majority also hypothesizes that there was no “legitimate sender", "paragraph_id": "para_977", "court_paragraph": 36 }, { "text": "history,” majority opinion at ¶ 28. Legitimate sender history likely refers to an", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "established track record and reputation of an email sender based on issues like the", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "email’s domain, the internet-protocol address identifying from where the email was", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "sent, or a specific email account and past interactions. Jesse Sumrak, 8 Ways to", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "Check Your Email Sending Reputation, https://www.twilio.com/en-", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "us/blog/insights/5-ways-check-sending-reputation (accessed July 6, 2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/QP7J-5P63]. As with the majority’s other claims, nothing in the", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "record substantiates the suggestion that the email account from which Harris sent", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "his March 2024 public-records request lacked a legitimate sender history. For all", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "we know, Harris could have opened the Gmail account in Thomas’s name the same", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "day he sent the email to the police department—in other words, the Gmail account", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "may have had no sender history at all. Again, it is speculation across the board.", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "{¶ 106} Moreover, if a public office’s spam filters rely on a legitimate", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "sender history, every time a person sends a public-records request to a public office", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "for the first time from his or her email account, that email will be diverted from the", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "recipient’s inbox to its spam-email folder. Once again, the requester has no control", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "over a public office’s spam-filter settings; he or she has no way around them and", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "no way of knowing whether they exist or what they are. But apparently to the", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "majority, it is okay for a public office to filter out first-time emails from public-", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "records requesters so long as the requester transmits his or her request from an email", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "address that has never been used to request a record from that public office.", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "{¶ 107} So, while the majority tries to couch its argument in technical", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "know-how, it is all just supposition and smoke and mirrors, alleviating the police", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "department of its statutory duty while elevating its own preferred policy.", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "6. The Majority’s Other Arguments Fail", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "{¶ 108} The majority attempts to discredit this opinion’s reliance on Ware,", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "2021-Ohio-624, on the basis that “[t]o ‘misplace’ or ‘lose track’ of something, one", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "must be aware of the thing in the first place,” majority opinion at ¶ 27. But that is", "paragraph_id": "para_1007", "court_paragraph": 37 }, { "text": "not an accurate restatement of this court’s reasoning in Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, or a", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "faithful reading of the Public Records Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "{¶ 109} In Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, this court did not award statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "damages because Ware proved that the police department knew about his public-", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "records request when it was first received. Rather, this court awarded statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "damages because Ware proved that he had transmitted his public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "by one of the qualifying methods—certified mail—and the city failed to respond to", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "the request in a reasonable amount of time. See id. at ¶ 17, 21.", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "{¶ 110} What the city asked this court to do in Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, was", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "create, by judicial fiat, a good-faith exception to its statutory duty under R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "149.43(B)(1) to produce a copy of the requested record “within a reasonable period", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "of time.” Specifically, the city asked this court to hold that its response nine months", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "after Ware sent his public-records request was “reasonable” because of all the", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "intervening circumstances. See Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, at ¶ 18. In that vein,", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "Harris’s case here is no different.", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "{¶ 111} In Ware, 2021-Ohio-624, the city essentially wanted this court to", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "adopt a good-faith “found later” exception to the Public Records Act. And this", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "court categorically rejected that request. Likewise, the majority should", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "categorically reject that same request here.", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "{¶ 112} The majority can paint it any way it wants, but the fact of the matter", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "is that the police department received Harris’s electronically transmitted March", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "2024 public-records request and failed to produce the requested record for well over", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "nine months. Whether Harris’s email was sitting in the police department’s public-", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "records-request email inbox or its spam-email folder is of no consequence. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "police department once again made Harris’s case by making an admission against", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "interest when it said that Harris electronically transmitted the 2024 request to its", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "public-records email address.", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "{¶ 113} To receive statutory damages, Harris need only prove that he", "paragraph_id": "para_1037", "court_paragraph": 38 }, { "text": "transmitted the request by a qualifying method and that the public office", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "responsible for the requested record failed to comply with an obligation under R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "149.43(B). See R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Despite the majority’s arguments to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "contrary, the Public Records Act does not require a requester seeking statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "damages to prove that the public office was “aware” of the request. See majority", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "opinion at ¶ 25, fn. 3. Indeed, it would be odd to hold a requester to such a burden,", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "because he or she has no authority over the public office.", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "{¶ 114} Similarly, the Public Records Act does not require a requester to", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "prove delivery to obtain statutory damages, only that the request for records was", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "transmitted by a qualifying method. See R.C. 149.43(C)(2). But even if it did", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "require proof of delivery, the police department’s admissions against interest", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "proved that for him. Despite the majority’s merry-go-round reasoning, the police", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "department admitted that it received Harris’s March 2024 public-records request in", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "its spam-email folder. The fact of the matter is that the request was delivered and", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "in the possession of the police department the whole time. The police department", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "and the majority’s reasoning that the fault lies with Harris for the email’s being", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "found almost a year after it was sent strains credulity. Harris has no control over", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "the police department’s email system just like Ware had no control over the police", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "department’s handling of his certified-mail request, see Ware, 2021-Ohio-624.", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "Consequently, the majority’s decision here to create by judicial fiat a “found later”", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "exception defies logic and Ohio’s public-records law.", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "{¶ 115} Therefore, considering the record evidence, the Public Records", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "Act, and this court’s caselaw, there is only one conclusion to reach: Harris is", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "entitled to statutory damages for his 2024 public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "{¶ 116} One hopes that the majority has simply misread the record, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "Public Records Act, and our caselaw. However, the extremes the majority goes to", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "just to deny Harris statutory damages—ignoring what is clearly in the record and", "paragraph_id": "para_1067", "court_paragraph": 39 }, { "text": "relying on pure speculation—appear results-oriented and directed at upholding its", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "own policy preference regarding whether incarcerated people should be entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "{¶ 117} Rather than deal with assumptions or masquerade as information-", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "technology experts, we should stick to our duty as judges and read statutes", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "according to their plain language. See State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose, 2022-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "3594, ¶ 36 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). And here, the plain language simply requires", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "Harris to show that he transmitted his public-records requests to the police", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "department using a qualifying method (e.g., email), that he fairly described the", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "records requested, and that the department failed to satisfy its obligation under", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(B) by not responding to the requests within a reasonable time.", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2). When analyzing R.C. 149.43’s plain language, this court has", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "squarely rejected starting the clock at the time a public office finds a request or", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "creating a “found later” exception, see Howard, 2023-Ohio-3399, at ¶ 33; Ware,", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "2021-Ohio-624, at ¶ 18, and that “principle does not change because the [request]", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "has gone from the physical to the virtual world,” Moody, 603 U.S. at 716.", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "{¶ 118} Despite the statute’s plain language, the majority denies Harris", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "damages for his 2024 request, going beyond interpreting the law to enacting its own", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "policy decision, see United States v. Temple, 105 U.S. 97, 99 (1881); Conrath at", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "¶ 36 (Kennedy, J., dissenting), thereby judicially creating an entirely new exception", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "to the production of records under the Public Records Act—an extra-statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "“found later” exception—allowing courts to deny statutory damages when a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "records-request email has been misdirected to a public office’s spam-email folder", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "and not found until months after the request was transmitted.", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "{¶ 119} The majority’s holding “circumvents the public policy established", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "by the General Assembly,” Weidman v. Hildebrant, 2024-Ohio-2931, ¶ 40", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "(Kennedy, C.J., dissenting). By establishing that what controls whether a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "records custodian responds to a public-records request within a reasonable time is", "paragraph_id": "para_1097", "court_paragraph": 40 }, { "text": "no longer the date when the requester transmits a request—as required by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "statute—but rather when the public office finds a request, the majority encourages", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "public offices to “game the system” by changing their email accounts’ settings to", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "purposefully divert more emails to their spam-email folders, thereby intentionally", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "causing unreasonable delays and providing stale information to requesters who", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "need it. See State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419, ¶ 22, quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2) (“The purpose of awarding statutory damages is to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "‘compensation for injury arising from lost use of the requested information.’”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "{¶ 120} Harris met his statutory burden. The police department admits that", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "Harris transmitted his March 2025 public-records request by email. And the fact", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "that Harris’s March 2024 email was diverted to the department’s spam-email folder", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "and not found for nearly a year is not a valid defense against a request for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "damages. Since Harris filed his mandamus complaint on March 13, 2025, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "police department did not respond to his public-records requests until April 2, 2025,", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "more than ten business days passed between the filing of this mandamus action and", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "the department’s compliance with its obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). See", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Consequently, Harris is entitled to the maximum amount of", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "damages provided by statute: $2,000. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "{¶ 121} Despite evidence in the record, the statute’s plain language, and this", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "court’s caselaw, the majority has decided to deny Harris’s request for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "damages. Therefore, while I concur in the court’s judgment denying the writ as", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "moot and its decision denying Harris’s request for court costs, I dissent from the", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "majority’s decision denying Harris’s request for statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "Lionel Harris, pro se.", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "Spengler Nathanson, P.L.L., and Teresa L. Grigsby, for respondent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" } ], "word_count": 12081, "cites": [ "603 U.S. 707", "105 U.S. 97" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "f09eb3635bbfd5019e5bdad71fe9f8d7e1ac18c835c1b0eea033658c476e85dd", "source_url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-3804.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T13:29:48.363+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "f09eb3635bbfd5019e5bdad71fe9f8d7e1ac18c835c1b0eea033658c476e85dd", "recomputed_sha256": "f09eb3635bbfd5019e5bdad71fe9f8d7e1ac18c835c1b0eea033658c476e85dd", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-15T22:22:20.869Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:f4ada0e4d2452718a9f26b757364419d36c26fcc2ee050e952ec06f786a823bf", "version": "legal-2026-10-15", "expires": "2026-10-16T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-15+legal-2026-10-15+2026-10-15T22:13:01", "content_hash": "sha256:f4ada0e4d2452718a9f26b757364419d36c26fcc2ee050e952ec06f786a823bf", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-15T23:22:21.538Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }