Quantcast

Ohio Supreme Court rules on officer identity concealment in Akron shooting

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Ohio Supreme Court rules on officer identity concealment in Akron shooting

State Supreme Court
Webp wlz814ub73zhy3s3qm52ndw4jant

Justice Joseph T. Deters | Ohio Supreme Court Website

The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the city of Akron can continue to withhold the identities of eight police officers involved in a 2022 shooting incident. This decision comes as part of a case involving the Akron Beacon Journal, which sought access to public records related to the June 2022 shooting death of Jayland Walker.

The court's ruling allows Akron to redact the names of the officers who fired their weapons during the incident from records provided to the newspaper. However, it mandates that other officers' names involved in this and two other police shootings in 2022 must be disclosed.

In its opinion, the court referenced an exception within the Ohio Public Records Act for confidential law enforcement investigatory records. This exception permits withholding information if it could reveal "the identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense." The court noted that since a grand jury declined to indict these officers and they may face federal investigation, they are considered "uncharged suspects."

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only, while Justice Jennifer Brunner expressed partial dissent. She argued for broader disclosure, including personnel files and internal investigations related to earlier shootings involving James Gross and Lawrence Rodgers.

Following Walker's shooting, where he was pursued by police and subsequently shot after allegedly firing a gun from his vehicle, Akron provided some requested information but redacted officer names. The Beacon Journal had also sought similar records for previous incidents involving Gross and Rodgers but faced similar redactions.

The Supreme Court clarified that requests for specific officer-related documents were valid public records requests. It rejected arguments suggesting potential harm justified withholding names more than two years post-incident.

Ultimately, while affirming certain disclosures regarding administrative leave notices without redactions, the court upheld protections under R.C. 149.43(A)(2) for uncharged suspects' identities.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News