uncharged-suspect exception in Ohio

2026Master v. Cleveland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 342 , 1996 Ohio 300 , 667 N.E.2d 974 . {¶17} In the Report and Recommendation at 6, the Special Master made certain findings, I … find that the Police Division appropriately withheld the bulk of the investigative file pursuant to the CLEIR work product exception.

2026Master v. Cleveland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 342 , 1996 Ohio 300 , 667 N.E.2d 974 . {¶17} In the Report and Recommendation at 6, the Special Master made certain findings, I … find that the Police Division appropriately withheld the bulk of the investigative file pursuant to the CLEIR work product exception.

2024Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor, 89 Ohio St.3d 440, 447 , 2000-Ohio-214 . {¶ 23} The trial court did not err in exempting the video interviews of Mike Hartley and Brandon Reed from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) because the City clearly established the applicability of the uncharged-suspect exception.

2010Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 440, 444 , 732 N.E.2d 969 . {¶ 29} With respect to the first criterion, records compiled by the board while investigating whether a physician violated R.C.

1996Moreland, supra, 67 Ohio St.3d at 130-131 , 616 N.E.2d at 236 ; State ex rel.

1996Moreland, supra, 67 Ohio St.3d at 130-131 , 616 N.E.2d at 236 ; State ex rel.

2026Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 30 , 1996 Ohio 228 , 661 N.E.2d 180 .

2026Sheriff’s Office, 2010-Ohio-3288, ¶ 10-11 , the Supreme Court of Ohio noted: “The uncharged suspect exception applies despite the passage of time, the lack of enforcement action, or a prosecutor’s decision not to file formal charges.” State ex rel.

2026Master v. Cleveland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 342 , 1996 Ohio 300 , 667 N.E.2d 974 . {¶17} In the Report and Recommendation at 6, the Special Master made certain findings, I … find that the Police Division appropriately withheld the bulk of the investigative file pursuant to the CLEIR work product exception.

2024Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor, 89 Ohio St.3d 440, 447 , 2000-Ohio-214 . {¶ 23} The trial court did not err in exempting the video interviews of Mike Hartley and Brandon Reed from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) because the City clearly established the applicability of the uncharged-suspect exception.

2024"In the -6- Clinton CA2024-02-002 absence of evidence to the contrary, public officers, administrative officers and public boards, within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred by law, will be presumed to have properly performed their duties and not to have acted illegally but regularly and in a lawful manner." Id. {¶ 17} Pitzer's second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶ 19} THE INTERVIEWS OF THE SUSPECTS DURING THE INVESTIGATION INTO CASEY PITZER'S DEATH ARE NOT EXEMPT UNDER THE UNCHARGED SUSPECT EXCEPTION. {¶ 20} Pitzer argues the trial court erred in f

2023Fluty admits that Broadview Heights cited the uncharged-suspect exception but faults it for relying on this exception because Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54 , 741 N.E.2d 511 , “makes clear that that exemption is not a legal authority to withhold the report.” Even if Maurer’s core holding were still good law, Fluty’s argument fails because the 12 January Term, 2023 Public Records Act does not authorize an award of statutory damages merely because a public office cites legal authority with which the requester disagrees. {¶ 40} Fluty also argues that Broadview Heights failed to provide her with a valid

1997The present case is distinguishable from relevant cases cited by Strothers: NBC; Snowden; Barton v. Shupe (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 308 , 525 N.E.2d 812 ; *334 State ex rel.

1997The present case is distinguishable from relevant cases cited by Strothers: NBC; Snowden; Barton v. Shupe (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 308 , 525 N.E.2d 812 ; *334 State ex rel.