"Act of terrorism" has the same meaning as in section 2909.21 of the Revised Code.
"Express statement" means a written statement substantially similar to the following: "This information is voluntarily submitted to a public office in expectation of protection from disclosure as provided by section 149.433 of the Revised Code."
"Infrastructure record" means any record that discloses the configuration of critical systems including, but not limited to, communication, computer, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, water, and plumbing systems, security codes, or the infrastructure or structural configuration of a building.
"Infrastructure record" includes a risk assessment of infrastructure performed by a state or local law enforcement agency at the request of a property owner or manager.
"Infrastructure record" does not mean a simple floor plan that discloses only the spatial relationship of components of the building.
"Security record" means any of the following:
(1) Any record that contains information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage;
(2) Any record assembled, prepared, or maintained by a public office or public body to prevent, mitigate, or respond to acts of terrorism, including any of the following:
(a) Those portions of records containing specific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique response plans either of which is intended to prevent or mitigate acts of terrorism, and communication codes or deployment plans of law enforcement or emergency response personnel;
(b) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records shared by federal and international law enforcement agencies with state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies;
(c) National security records classified under federal executive order and not subject to public disclosure under federal law that are shared by federal agencies, and other records related to national security briefings to assist state and local government with domestic preparedness for acts of terrorism.
(3) An emergency management plan adopted pursuant to section 5502.262 of the Revised Code.
(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4) of this section, a record kept by a public office that is a security record is not a public record under section 149.43 of the Revised Code and is not subject to mandatory release or disclosure under that section.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4) of this section, a record kept by a public office that is an infrastructure record of a public office, public school, or a chartered nonpublic school is not a public record under section 149.43 of the Revised Code and is not subject to mandatory release or disclosure under that section.
(3) A record kept by a public office that is an infrastructure record of a private entity may be exempted from release or disclosure under division (C) of this section.
(4) Divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to a record that is a public notification required to be provided under division (D)(1)(d) of section 2923.122 of the Revised Code. A record that is such a public notification is a public record to the extent that it is required to be provided under division (D)(1)(d) of section 2923.122 of the Revised Code.
(C) A record prepared by, submitted to, or kept by a public office that is an infrastructure record of a private entity, which is submitted to the public office for use by the public office, when accompanied by an express statement, is exempt from release or disclosure under section 149.43 of the Revised Code for a period of twenty-five years after its creation if it is retained by the public office for that length of time.
(D) Notwithstanding any other section of the Revised Code, disclosure by a public office, public employee, chartered nonpublic school, or chartered nonpublic school employee of a security record or infrastructure record that is necessary for construction, renovation, or remodeling work on any public building or project or chartered nonpublic school does not constitute public disclosure for purposes of waiving division (B) of this section and does not result in that record becoming a public record for purposes of section 149.43 of the Revised Code.
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 25דThe court of appeals rejected the prosecutor’s contention that the video was also exempt from public-records release as an “infrastructure record” pursuant to R.C. 149.433(A) and (B)(2). Because the prosecutor did not appeal that ruling, that issue is not before us, and the…”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 24דBecause we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Ohio Repub. Party v. FitzGerald (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 5056 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 26ד{¶ 2} At the time of the ORP’s request, the key-card-swipe data were “security records” exempted from release pursuant to R.C. 149.433, because, according to an affidavit by a detective in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office, FitzGerald had received threats and release of that…”
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 30ד) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson, 2024 Ohio 182 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 28דThe department refused to produce the records—even in redacted form—because, it argued, the records contained information directly used for protecting and maintaining the security of the governor’s office and thus were “security records” under R.C. 149.433(A). Id. at ¶ 1, 4-5,…”
State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3679 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 20ד1 Legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records, even redacted records, based on R.C. 149.433. That provision exempts “security records” from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.”
State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, 2025 Ohio 1026 (Ohio 2025). · cites it 14ד” The next day, Myers denied the request, writing that the records were security records exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.433. Adkins now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records and an award of statutory damages.”
State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka, 2024 Ohio 5125 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 27דTrelka responded on September 21 that these are security records and that under R.C. 149.433, they are not public records.”
State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3815 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 5ד” {¶ 22} NCCC argues in its merit brief that any records regarding the broken printer are infrastructure records under R.C. 149.433 and are therefore exempt from disclosure.”
State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023 Ohio 1177 (Ohio 2023). · cites it 3ד2: On November 10, Robinson sent Sultaana four redacted records related to the June 9 assault—an incident report, a medical report, a report notifying the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) of the assault, and a conduct report for the inmate who assaulted her son.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosec. Atty., 2019 Ohio 473 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019). · cites it 11ד) Infrastructure and Security Records – R.C. 149.433 {¶11} The Prosecutor’s Office asserts that the entire two-hour video meets the definition of both an “infrastructure record” and a “security record.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Off. of the Pros. Atty., 2019 Ohio 964 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019). · cites it 15ד) {¶13} As used in R.C. 149.433, an infrastructure record “means any record that discloses the configuration of critical systems including, but not limited to, communication, computer, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, water, and plumbing systems, security codes, or the…”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). “) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “The court of appeals rejected the prosecutor’s contention that the video was also exempt from public-records release as an “infrastructure record” pursuant to R.C. 149.433(A) and (B)(2). Because the prosecutor did not appeal that ruling, that issue is not before us, and the…”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson, 2024 Ohio 182 (Ohio 2024). “The department refused to produce the records—even in redacted form—because, it argued, the records contained information directly used for protecting and maintaining the security of the governor’s office and thus were “security records” under R.C. 149.433(A). Id. at ¶ 1, 4-5,…”
State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3815 (Ohio 2020). “” {¶ 22} NCCC argues in its merit brief that any records regarding the broken printer are infrastructure records under R.C. 149.433 and are therefore exempt from disclosure.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.433(A)(1) — 20 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “The court of appeals rejected the prosecutor’s contention that the video was also exempt from public-records release as an “infrastructure record” pursuant to R.C. 149.433(A) and (B)(2). Because the prosecutor did not appeal that ruling, that issue is not before us, and the…”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson, 2024 Ohio 182 (Ohio 2024). “The department refused to produce the records—even in redacted form—because, it argued, the records contained information directly used for protecting and maintaining the security of the governor’s office and thus were “security records” under R.C. 149.433(A). Id. at ¶ 1, 4-5,…”
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). “) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka, 2024 Ohio 5125 (Ohio 2024). “Trelka responded on September 21 that these are security records and that under R.C. 149.433, they are not public records.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.433(A)(2) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Ohio Repub. Party v. FitzGerald (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 5056 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 2} At the time of the ORP’s request, the key-card-swipe data were “security records” exempted from release pursuant to R.C. 149.433, because, according to an affidavit by a detective in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office, FitzGerald had received threats and release of that…”
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “The court of appeals rejected the prosecutor’s contention that the video was also exempt from public-records release as an “infrastructure record” pursuant to R.C. 149.433(A) and (B)(2). Because the prosecutor did not appeal that ruling, that issue is not before us, and the…”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023 Ohio 1177 (Ohio 2023). “2: On November 10, Robinson sent Sultaana four redacted records related to the June 9 assault—an incident report, a medical report, a report notifying the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) of the assault, and a conduct report for the inmate who assaulted her son.”
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). “) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, 2025 Ohio 1026 (Ohio 2025). “” The next day, Myers denied the request, writing that the records were security records exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.433. Adkins now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records and an award of statutory damages.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.433(A)(3) — 8 cases
State ex rel. Ohio Repub. Party v. FitzGerald (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 5056 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 2} At the time of the ORP’s request, the key-card-swipe data were “security records” exempted from release pursuant to R.C. 149.433, because, according to an affidavit by a detective in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office, FitzGerald had received threats and release of that…”
State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3679 (Ohio 2014). “1 Legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records, even redacted records, based on R.C. 149.433. That provision exempts “security records” from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.”
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). “) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Off. of the Pros. Atty., 2019 Ohio 964 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019). “) {¶13} As used in R.C. 149.433, an infrastructure record “means any record that discloses the configuration of critical systems including, but not limited to, communication, computer, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, water, and plumbing systems, security codes, or the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.433(A)(3)(a) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3679 (Ohio 2014). “1 Legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records, even redacted records, based on R.C. 149.433. That provision exempts “security records” from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Ohio Repub. Party v. FitzGerald (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 5056 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 2} At the time of the ORP’s request, the key-card-swipe data were “security records” exempted from release pursuant to R.C. 149.433, because, according to an affidavit by a detective in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office, FitzGerald had received threats and release of that…”
State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3679 (Ohio 2014). “1 Legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records, even redacted records, based on R.C. 149.433. That provision exempts “security records” from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “The court of appeals rejected the prosecutor’s contention that the video was also exempt from public-records release as an “infrastructure record” pursuant to R.C. 149.433(A) and (B)(2). Because the prosecutor did not appeal that ruling, that issue is not before us, and the…”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson, 2024 Ohio 182 (Ohio 2024). “The department refused to produce the records—even in redacted form—because, it argued, the records contained information directly used for protecting and maintaining the security of the governor’s office and thus were “security records” under R.C. 149.433(A). Id. at ¶ 1, 4-5,…”
State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka, 2024 Ohio 5125 (Ohio 2024). “Trelka responded on September 21 that these are security records and that under R.C. 149.433, they are not public records.”
State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, 2025 Ohio 1026 (Ohio 2025). “” The next day, Myers denied the request, writing that the records were security records exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.433. Adkins now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records and an award of statutory damages.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 149.433(B)(2) — 4 cases
McDougald v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4268 (Ohio 2020). “) In Greene’s answer to McDougald’s petition for a writ of mandamus, Greene did not mention R.C. 149.433 or 5120.21. Moreover, in his merit brief, Greene fails to mention R.”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018). “Because we hold that the requested record is neither an "infrastructure record" nor a "security record" under R.C. 149.433, we grant the writ of mandamus and order DRC to provide Rogers with an unredacted copy of the requested video.”
State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3815 (Ohio 2020). “” {¶ 22} NCCC argues in its merit brief that any records regarding the broken printer are infrastructure records under R.C. 149.433 and are therefore exempt from disclosure.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Off. of the Pros. Atty., 2019 Ohio 964 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019). “) {¶13} As used in R.C. 149.433, an infrastructure record “means any record that discloses the configuration of critical systems including, but not limited to, communication, computer, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, water, and plumbing systems, security codes, or the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.