COLUMBUS, OH - Under Ohio's Marsy's Law privacy protections, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police officers can be considered victims and thus not be subject to public disclosure.
The case that brought about Marsy's Law stems from a July 2023 incident in which three men robbed several car dealerships, banks, and a GameStop before getting tracked down by police, 10WBNS reported. A police pursuit on I-70 ended in a shootout with police.
The two alleged suspects fled on foot, but a third suspect shot one officer five times and was approaching a second officer when he was shot and killed. The fleeing suspects were caught, and in January of this year, were sentenced to 25 and 15 years, respectively.
On the day of the shooting, reporters at the Columbus Dispatch filed a public records request for bodycam and dashcam footage of the incident. The Columbus Police Department released redacted footage that shielded the identities of the officers, stating they were victims of a crime.
The Dispatch in turn sued the police department, claiming police officers acting in their official capacity cannot be considered victims because they are representing the state.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Patrick DeWine, writing for the court's majority opinion, disagreed. "Applying the plain text of the amendment, we have no difficulty concluding that an ordinary understanding of Marsy's Law's definition of victim encompasses the officers in this case," he wrote.
DeWine looks at the incident very simply: A victim under Marsy's Law is a person against whom a criminal act is committed, and a police officer is definitely a person. "The court is not being asked to determine whether an edge case fits within the scope of underdeterminative constitutional text," DeWine wrote. "This is a case in which the text is clear and determinative with respect to police officers."
The police union was pleased with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision. "This ruling is a bright light for common sense," Fraternal Order of Police if Ohio President Jay McDonald said in a statement. "Of course, Marsy's Law protects police. When an officer is attacked, they are a victim like anyone else, and they deserve the same privacy and protections."
Some other justices on the bench, however, do not think it is that simple, even if they agree that police officers can meet the definition of victims.
Marsy's Law was first adopted as part of the California State Constitution in 2008. The amendment provides several protections for victims of crime to ensure they're heard in court, aware of developments in the case, and afforded privacy as proceedings play out.
Since its adoption in California, 13 other states have adopted a version of the amendment. While the police celebrated, Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein, who serves as legal advisor to the police department, said that he respects the public's desire for transparency, especially in use of force cases. He said that city officials were simply trying to follow the law as written.
"Today's ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court affirms that interpretation of Marsy's Law," he said. "If the Ohio legislature chooses to amend or clarify these important public record provision in the future, we will of course follow those laws at that time."
The ALCU of Ohio opposed Marsy's Law when it went before voters. "The ALCU of Ohio believes a transparent government can be an accountable government. In the wake of this decision, we stand ready and look forward to working with the state legislature to ensure that violent encounters between state actors and civilians are scrutinized under the daylight they deserve," Senior Policy Counsel Patrick Higgins wrote in a statement.
The case that brought about Marsy's Law stems from a July 2023 incident in which three men robbed several car dealerships, banks, and a GameStop before getting tracked down by police, 10WBNS reported. A police pursuit on I-70 ended in a shootout with police.
The two alleged suspects fled on foot, but a third suspect shot one officer five times and was approaching a second officer when he was shot and killed. The fleeing suspects were caught, and in January of this year, were sentenced to 25 and 15 years, respectively.
On the day of the shooting, reporters at the Columbus Dispatch filed a public records request for bodycam and dashcam footage of the incident. The Columbus Police Department released redacted footage that shielded the identities of the officers, stating they were victims of a crime.
The Dispatch in turn sued the police department, claiming police officers acting in their official capacity cannot be considered victims because they are representing the state.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Patrick DeWine, writing for the court's majority opinion, disagreed. "Applying the plain text of the amendment, we have no difficulty concluding that an ordinary understanding of Marsy's Law's definition of victim encompasses the officers in this case," he wrote.
DeWine looks at the incident very simply: A victim under Marsy's Law is a person against whom a criminal act is committed, and a police officer is definitely a person. "The court is not being asked to determine whether an edge case fits within the scope of underdeterminative constitutional text," DeWine wrote. "This is a case in which the text is clear and determinative with respect to police officers."
The police union was pleased with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision. "This ruling is a bright light for common sense," Fraternal Order of Police if Ohio President Jay McDonald said in a statement. "Of course, Marsy's Law protects police. When an officer is attacked, they are a victim like anyone else, and they deserve the same privacy and protections."
Some other justices on the bench, however, do not think it is that simple, even if they agree that police officers can meet the definition of victims.
Marsy's Law was first adopted as part of the California State Constitution in 2008. The amendment provides several protections for victims of crime to ensure they're heard in court, aware of developments in the case, and afforded privacy as proceedings play out.
Since its adoption in California, 13 other states have adopted a version of the amendment. While the police celebrated, Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein, who serves as legal advisor to the police department, said that he respects the public's desire for transparency, especially in use of force cases. He said that city officials were simply trying to follow the law as written.
"Today's ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court affirms that interpretation of Marsy's Law," he said. "If the Ohio legislature chooses to amend or clarify these important public record provision in the future, we will of course follow those laws at that time."
The ALCU of Ohio opposed Marsy's Law when it went before voters. "The ALCU of Ohio believes a transparent government can be an accountable government. In the wake of this decision, we stand ready and look forward to working with the state legislature to ensure that violent encounters between state actors and civilians are scrutinized under the daylight they deserve," Senior Policy Counsel Patrick Higgins wrote in a statement.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments