PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY: THE LAW-IN-ACTION AT STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN OHIO.

摘要

The focal point of this legal research was the application of public record and privacy statutes at state university law enforcement units in Ohio.;An analysis of relevant federal and state law was undertaken with case law as the focal point. The analysis emphasized the legal problems and issues in applying statutory law at the state university law enforcement units of Ohio. The conclusions of the analysis included: (1) Unless specifically exempted or labeled confidential by statute, all state university law enforcement records necessarily compiled and maintained for the execution of the duties and responsibilities of the unit are public record. (2) State university law enforcement records that are not public records are those the release of which would create a high probability of disclosing any of the following: (a) The identity of a suspect who has been charged with the offense reported in the record; (b) The identity of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised; (c) Information that would reasonably tend to identify an information source or witness reasonably promised confidentiality and who was the source of the information; (d) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures; (e) Specific investigatory work product; (f) Information that would endanger the life or physical safety of (1) law enforcement personnel, (2) a crime victim, (3) a witness, or (4) a confidential information source. (g) Information specifically prepared for litigation. (3) State university law enforcement units are exempt from the provisions of chapter 1347 of the Ohio Revised Code except for the requirement of filing notices of the existence and character of personnal information systems maintained by them. However, such exemption does not apply to the personal information systems of the unit that are not related directly to the law enforcement function (e.g., department personnel and payroll records). (4) As long as Ohio's state universities are receiving federal funds, there is no conflict between federal and state laws regarding the privacy of education records. However, should such funding cease, Ohio's public record and privacy statutes would become controlling. (5) The statutory provisions in Ohio concerning access to public records is too broad for effective and efficient operation of some governmental functions. When the implications of Senate Bill 62 and recent case law becomes more widely understood, police departments will be besieged by reporters, researchers, attorneys, and others who want access to records and information.;The conclusions and implications were far-reaching and very significant not only for state university law enforcement units specifically, but also for all Ohio public agencies generally. The negative impact of the conclusions had not been dramatic at the time of the study primarily because the public was not aware of the public record statute and its implications. It was recommended that legislative action be initiated immediately to correct the deficiencies in Ohio law regarding public agency record management.;The recommendations were subdivided into (a) general recommendations, (b) policy and procedure recommendations, and (c) legislative recommendations. The policy and procedure recommendations addressed the law enforcement units' concerns of disclosure of information, access and duplication of records, classification of records, and retention of records.;In the Summer of 1980, a survey of eleven state university law enforcement administrators and six legal advisors to such units was conducted to obtain information related to (a) the records management function, (b) the problems and issues in applying public record and privacy statutes to the records function, and (c) the legal interpretations and litigation associated with the records function.