The Cincinnati Enquirer recently lost a battle in the Ohio Court of Appeals regarding access to inmate phone call records. The court sided with the Butler County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), ruling that a requested call log detailing calls made by an inmate is not a “public record” under Ohio law and therefore does not have to be provided.
The Case’s Background
The case stemmed from a public records request made by The Cincinnati Enquirer (the “Enquirer”) to the BCSO on November 26, 2024. The Enquirer sought a call log of phone calls made by George “Billy” Wagner III, an inmate at the Butler County Jail, during his nearly six years of incarceration while awaiting trial. Wagner was awaiting trial on charges including eight counts of aggravated murder related to the 2016 Rhoden family murders.
The BCSO denied the request, stating that it did not possess such a record. They argued that inmate phone calls are not considered a “record” under Ohio Revised Code 149.011, as they do not document the organization’s functions, policies, or activities. The Enquirer then filed a complaint with the Court of Claims, alleging that the BCSO was improperly withholding public records.
Court of Claims’ Initial Ruling
The Court of Claims initially sided with the Enquirer. A special master, appointed to handle the case, recommended that the BCSO be ordered to create and provide the requested call log. The special master argued that the call log was a “record” because it documented the BCSO’s compliance with its obligation to provide inmates with access to telephone services. The special master also invoked the “quasi-agency doctrine,” suggesting that the BCSO should work with the third-party vendor that handles inmate calls to obtain the log. The Court of Claims adopted the special master’s report and recommendation.
The Appeals Court’s Decision
The BCSO appealed the Court of Claims’ decision to the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio. The appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling, agreeing with the BCSO that the requested call log was not a “public record.”
The appeals court’s reasoning centered on the definition of “record” under Ohio law. According to Ohio Revised Code 149.011(G), a “record” must be a document, device, or item created or received by a public office that serves to document the organization’s functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities. The court found that a call log, in this case, would primarily document Wagner’s activities, not the activities of the BCSO.
The court stated, “That Wagner may have used the phone while he was incarcerated at the Butler County Jail would not document ‘the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities’ of the BCSO. It would serve only to document what Wagner himself may have done, or not done, during the nearly six years in which he was incarcerated at the Butler County Jail.”
The court also noted that the BCSO had already provided the Enquirer with its policy regarding phone call restrictions, which the court considered a public record. This policy documented the BCSO’s procedures and operations.
Key Arguments and the Court’s Analysis
The court specifically addressed two key arguments:
* Argument 1: Lack of an Existing Record: The BCSO argued that the requested call log did not exist because it had never requested or possessed such a record from the third-party vendor. The court did not explicitly rule on whether the “quasi-agency doctrine” applied, but the court’s ruling effectively negated the need to address this point since there was no public record to be obtained.
* Argument 2: Definition of a “Record”: The BCSO contended that even if a call log existed, it would not document the organization’s activities. The appeals court agreed, stating that the call log would primarily reflect Wagner’s actions, not the BCSO’s.
The court emphasized that a request for information, rather than a specific existing record, is not a proper public records request under Ohio law. They pointed out that the Enquirer was essentially seeking information about Wagner’s calls, which would require the BCSO to create a new record.
Comparison to a Recent Ohio Supreme Court Case
The court also distinguished this case from a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, *State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe*. In *Teagarden*, the Supreme Court ruled that a prison library’s sign-in sheets for computer use were public records because they documented the library’s activities. The appeals court emphasized that the call log in this case was different because it did not document the BCSO’s activities, but rather Wagner’s.
The Outcome and Implications
The appeals court’s decision means the BCSO does not have to create or provide the requested call log to the Enquirer. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of the definition of “public record” under Ohio law. It highlights that a request for information, which would require a public office to create a new record, is not a valid public records request.