Establishing Evidentiary Standards and Security‐Record Exemptions Under the Ohio Public Records Act in Correctional Institutions

Introduction

State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1026 (2025), represents the Ohio Supreme Court’s most comprehensive pronouncement to date on how the Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) is to be applied in the context of prison inmates seeking records from corrections‐department personnel. In four consolidated mandamus actions, inmate relator Patrick H. Adkins III brought identical claims against two Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) employees—Steven Cole and Ellen Myers—seeking production of various “kites” (inmate correspondence), institutional logs, video footage, and other documents, along with statutory damages for delays and denials.

The core issues presented were:

What evidentiary burden does an inmate‐requester bear to show that prison personnel unlawfully withheld records?
What is the scope of the “security‐record” exemption in R.C. 149.433, and when may it justify an outright denial?
Under what circumstances may statutory damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)) be awarded when corrections officers delay or refuse to produce inmate‐requested records?

The decision resolves each of the four cases, denying writs of mandamus in all and awarding statutory damages only in one.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s per curiam opinion, joined by six justices, with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in part and dissenting in part, addresses four separate public‐records mandamus actions (Nos. 2024-0740, ‑0747, ‑0846, ‑0856). The high court’s holdings are as follows:

Case No. 2024-0740: November 24, 2023 request for inmate “kites” sent to the prison library. The Court held that Adkins failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the kites had not been provided; the writ of mandamus and statutory damages were denied.
Case No. 2024-0747: November 26, 2023 request for inmate kites sent to the third-party tablet vendor (ViaPath). The Court found Adkins did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the DRC possessed or controlled those kites; mandamus and statutory damages were denied.
Case No. 2024-0846: August 28, 2023 request for (1) a property‐room sign‐in form and (2) an inmate sign‐in sheet, plus a November 27, 2023 request for an unredacted copy of a prior kite. The Court determined: the property‐room form was properly withheld under the security-record exemption until provided upon transfer, making the mandamus claim moot and statutory‐damages claim unfounded; the inmate sign‐in sheet did not exist; and the alleged redaction of the kite copy was not proven. All relief and statutory damages denied.
Case No. 2024-0856: January 1, 2024 request to view video footage of a unit “microwave location,” and February 6/March 28, 2024 requests for an unredacted grievance. The Court held the video footage copy was destroyed after the request, but nonetheless awarded $1,000 in statutory damages because the footage had existed at the time of the request and its denial was improper; the grievance was eventually provided in redacted form and no clear improper redaction was shown, so mandamus on that claim was denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer (2021-Ohio-1419): established that a requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence both a clear legal right to records and a clear legal duty to produce them.
State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple Hts. Police Dept. (2019-Ohio-4137): held that a self-serving affidavit is insufficient to meet the clear‐and‐convincing standard when contradicted by custodial affidavits.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers (2024-Ohio-104): construed the scope of rebuttal evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B) and the limits on evidentiary filings in mandamus cases.
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2018-Ohio-5111): clarified that the security‐record exemption must be shown to “fall squarely” within R.C. 149.433(B)(1).
State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka (2024-Ohio-5125) and McDougald v. Greene (2020-Ohio-4268): illustrate how similar DRC logs and shift records were treated under the security‐record exemption.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be distilled into three principal points:

Evidentiary Burden in Public‐Records Mandamus: A relator must introduce clear and convincing evidence that requested records exist, were in the respondent’s possession or control, and were unlawfully withheld or redacted. Affidavits from responsible custodians attesting non‐possession or lawful provision are ordinarily sufficient to defeat a writ when uncontradicted by substantive evidence.
Security‐Record Exemption (R.C. 149.433): The exemption applies only to “security records” defined as “records containing information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage.” Simply fearing inmate misuse of staff schedules or locations does not satisfy that narrow definition unless the document is demonstrably and routinely used for security planning or incident response.
Statutory Damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)): Once a requester proves a delay or wrongful denial (by clear and convincing evidence), $100 per business day can be awarded, up to $1,000 total. The trigger date is the filing of the mandamus action, and awards hinge on whether the office’s noncompliance was unreasonable or contrary to express statutory duties.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision provides correctional institutions and inmate‐requesters with clear guideposts:

Inmate‐filing litigants must marshal objective, corroborated evidence to challenge custodial affidavits.
DRC and prison staff must articulate with specificity how exempted records are “directly used” for security if they invoke R.C. 149.433.
Where video or electronic records are destroyed post‐request but pre‐production, statutory damages may still apply if existence at the time of request can be shown.
Delays in responding—especially beyond a few weeks—for records that do not require redaction or voluminous searches remain dangerous if compelled into court.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Kites”: Written messages sent by inmates to prison staff or external vendors. They may be paper or electronic.
Mandamus: A writ directing a public official to perform a statutory duty—in this context, ordering compliance with public‐records requests.
Statutory Damages: An automatic $100 per business day award (max $1,000) when a public office fails to comply with its disclosure obligations after a mandamus filing.
Security Record Exemption: Under R.C. 149.433, records are exempt only if they “contain information directly used for protecting or maintaining security against attack, interference, or sabotage.”
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher standard than preponderance of the evidence; the evidence must “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”

Conclusion

State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole stands as a milestone in Ohio public‐records jurisprudence, particularly within the corrections environment. It clarifies that:

Inmates face a demanding evidentiary burden to compel record production;
Security‐record exemptions must be narrowly construed and justified by actual security usage; and
Statutory damages remain available where records existed at the time of request and were wrongfully withheld or delayed.

Corrections administrators, prison legal departments, and inmate‐advocacy groups must now navigate these heightened standards in drafting, responding to, and litigating public‐records requests.