Judicial Finding Requirement for Incarcerated Requesters under R.C. 149.43(B)(8)

Introduction

State ex rel. Mack v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Central Records (2025-Ohio-1332) arises from a pro se public-records request by an inmate, John H. Mack Jr., seeking investigatory files held by the Ohio State Highway Patrol (the “Highway Patrol”). Mack—convicted of aggravated murder in 2022—sent a certified‐mail public-records request in May 2024, citing R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which shields from disclosure investigation or prosecution records of a crime to an incarcerated person unless the sentencing judge finds them necessary to support a justiciable claim. The Patrol denied his request under that exception, and Mack then filed an original action in mandamus asking this Court to compel production and award statutory damages. On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied both reliefs, thus clarifying the scope of the B(8) exception and the elements for mandamus and statutory damages under the Public Records Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s per curiam opinion, joined by six justices (with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in the judgment only), held:

The Highway Patrol properly denied Mack’s requests for investigatory records (items 1–4, 6, 8) under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) because Mack did not obtain a judicial finding that the records were necessary to support a justiciable claim.
The Patrol showed by affidavit that no retention-schedule documents existed for “ping” requests (item 5), so it had no obligation to produce them.
The Patrol later supplied all personnel forms for officer Geoffrey Moran (item 7), rendering mandamus unnecessary as to that category.
Because Mack failed to show any breach of the Act’s disclosure requirements, he was not entitled to an award of statutory damages.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419 – held that a requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence a right to records and a corresponding duty to provide them.
State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers, 2022-Ohio-1915 – reinforced the burden on a public office to “plead and prove” any claimed exceptions to disclosure.
State ex rel. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371 – emphasized that exceptions under R.C. 149.43 must be strictly construed and factually established.
State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2024-Ohio-2694 – affirmed that a public office has no duty to produce non-existent records, and that an affidavit from the records custodian suffices to establish nonexistence.
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-2782 – confirmed that a custodian’s uncontradicted averment of nonexistence precludes mandamus relief for those records.
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2023-Ohio-3382 – clarified that a mere failure to organize records does not independently trigger statutory damages unless the office also fails to timely produce responsive records.

2. Legal Reasoning

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

Mandamus Standard: Under R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b), mandamus is the remedy to enforce the Public Records Act. The requester must establish a “clear legal right” to the records and a matching “clear legal duty” on the custodian by clear and convincing evidence (Griffin).
B(8) Exception: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) prohibits disclosure of investigation or prosecution records to an incarcerated person unless the sentencing judge finds the information necessary to support a justiciable claim. Mack’s inclusion of the trial court’s order on a separate “motion to access” his criminal‐case file did not satisfy B(8)’s requirement, because that order did not address or find necessity for the Highway Patrol records in support of a claim.
Statutory Damages: Under former R.C. 149.43(C)(2), a requester who submits a certified-mail request may recover damages only if the office “fail[s] to comply with its obligations under [B](1)” (i.e., to produce non-exempt records at cost within a reasonable time). Here, no such failure occurred.

3. Impact on Future Cases and on Public Records Law

This decision provides clear guidance on two critical fronts:

Incarcerated requesters must secure an explicit judicial finding under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for each category of investigatory or prosecutorial records they seek. A general order granting access to a criminal file does not suffice.
Public offices defending mandamus actions may rely on sworn affidavits from records custodians to prove nonexistence of requested records. Absent contrary evidence, such affidavits will defeat a claim to compelling production.

Moreover, the decision underscores the narrow circumstances under which statutory damages may be awarded, effectively eliminating damages claims where the office either legitimately withholds under a statutory exception or timely produces all non‐exempt records.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a legal duty.
R.C. 149.43(B)(8): A provision barring disclosure of criminal investigation/prosecution records to prisoners unless their sentencing judge finds the records necessary for a viable legal claim.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard showing that a fact is highly probable or reasonably certain—a middle‐tier proof standard higher than the preponderance of evidence but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Statutory Damages: A fixed monetary award (up to $100 per day) available when a public office fails to fulfill certain obligations under the Public Records Act.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Mack v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Central Records cements two important principles: first, incarcerated persons seeking investigatory or prosecutorial files must obtain a specific judicial finding under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and second, a custodian’s uncontradicted affidavit of nonexistence is sufficient to defeat mandamus claims for records that do not exist. By clarifying the proper application of the B(8) exception and the prerequisites for statutory damages, the Court provides firm guidance to both prison‐based requesters and public offices navigating the Public Records Act’s disclosure framework.