Snodgrass v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.: Conclusory Affidavits Cannot Sustain Law‑Enforcement or Security Exemptions—Prison Device and Disciplinary Records Are Disclosable Absent Specific Proof

Snodgrass v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.: Conclusory Affidavits Cannot Sustain Law‑Enforcement or Security Exemptions—Prison Device and Disciplinary Records Are Disclosable Absent Specific Proof

Introduction

In State ex rel. Snodgrass v. Trumbull Correctional Institution, 2025-Ohio-4688, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted a writ of mandamus compelling a state prison to produce records responsive to four public-records requests made by an incarcerated requester. The Court held that general assertions invoking “investigatory techniques,” “specific investigatory work product,” or “security records” are insufficient; the custodian must provide specific, nonconclusory factual support showing that the requested records fall squarely within an exemption to Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43).

The case arises from requests by relator Marwan Snodgrass to Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI) for: (1) information about the device used by prison investigators to analyze drugs, (2) records concerning the device as used in a specified conduct report, (3) the investigating officer’s drug-analysis report for that conduct report, and (4) the hearing officer’s report related to the same disciplinary matter. TCI denied the requests, relying variously on the “confidential law enforcement investigatory record” exemptions in R.C. 149.43(A)(2), Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49, and the “security record” exemption in R.C. 149.433.

The key issues before the Court were whether TCI met its burden to prove that the requested records were exempt from disclosure and whether Snodgrass was entitled to statutory damages. In a per curiam opinion joined by all justices except for a partial dissent by Justice Brunner (who would have awarded statutory damages), the Court ordered production of the records and denied damages.

Summary of the Opinion

  • The Court granted Snodgrass’s unopposed motion to treat the sworn and certified exhibits attached to his complaint as evidence, consistent with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06.
  • The Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling TCI to provide records responsive to all four requests because TCI failed to demonstrate, with specific factual support, that any statutory exemption applied.
  • Concerning investigatory exemptions (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (c); Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49(C)(13)(b)), the Court found TCI’s affidavit conclusory and inadequate. The opinion reiterates that exemptions must be strictly construed and proven with particularized facts showing the requested records “fall squarely within” an exemption.
  • As to the “security record” exemption (R.C. 149.433), TCI provided no evidence showing the records are “directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage.” The exemption was therefore not established.
  • Although the legislature amended R.C. 149.43 in April 2025 to render persons in ODRC custody ineligible for statutory damages, the prior version applied here, yet the Court denied damages because Snodgrass did not brief the issue and thus waived it. Justice Brunner dissented in part on damages only.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 2008-Ohio-1770, ¶ 10. The Court relies on the foundational rule that Public Records Act exemptions are strictly construed against the custodian and the custodian bears the burden to show the records “fall squarely within the exception.” This principle sets the high bar TCI failed to meet.
  • Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 50, and State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶ 34. These cases require specific factual support beyond conclusory statements to justify withholding. The Court applied them to reject TCI’s affidavit, which merely labeled the requested records as “investigatory techniques” or “investigative results” without describing the contents or explaining the risk of disclosure.
  • State ex rel. Howard v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-3399, ¶ 24. When the applicability of an exemption is not apparent on the face of the request, the custodian must describe the documents and explain why they contain exempt information. The absence of such a description was fatal to TCI’s defense, particularly as to the hearing officer’s report and the investigation-specific items.
  • State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶ 27. Conduct reports do not fall within the “specific investigatory work product” exemption in R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). The Court invoked this to undercut TCI’s broad reliance on investigatory work-product labels for disciplinary records.
  • State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers, 2022-Ohio-1915, ¶ 32; State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 2016-Ohio-8394, ¶ 47; State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, 2016-Ohio-7987, ¶¶ 41–42. These decisions establish that the “specific investigatory work product” exemption expires at the end of a criminal trial or when the investigation is closed. The Court cites them to emphasize the temporal limits of the exemption, undermining any claim to a permanent shield over disciplinary-investigation materials.
  • State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-5111, ¶ 7. Reinforces that non-disclosure is proper only if an exception applies or if release is otherwise prohibited by law. It frames the basic legal landscape for the custodian’s defensive burden.
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-770, ¶ 6. Restates the mandamus standard: the relator must show by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested records and a corresponding clear legal duty to produce them.
  • State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2012-Ohio-753, ¶ 69. Applied to hold that Snodgrass waived statutory damages by not arguing them in his merits brief.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in three interrelated steps: (1) the evidentiary sufficiency of TCI’s exemptions, (2) the narrow scope and temporal limits of investigatory exemptions, and (3) the inapplicability of the “security record” exemption absent proof.

1) Evidentiary sufficiency: conclusory affidavits are not enough

TCI initially denied the first request under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a), then shifted in litigation to (A)(2)(c) (investigatory techniques), which the statute permits under R.C. 149.43(B)(3). But regardless of the cited subsection, the Court emphasized that when the exemption is not apparent from the face of the request, the custodian must provide “specific factual support” and describe how disclosure would reveal exempt content. TCI’s sole affidavit from the warden’s assistant asserted in general terms that the requests sought “investigatory techniques” or “results of an investigation.” The affidavit did not describe the contents of the requested records or explain the nexus between disclosure and the harm contemplated by the statute. Under Sultaana and Welsh-Huggins, such conclusory labeling is insufficient.

2) Narrow tailoring and temporal limits of investigatory exemptions

For the second and third requests (investigation-specific records tied to a particular conduct report), TCI relied on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49(C)(13)(b), which mirrors R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) by exempting “specific confidential techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product.” The Court held:

  • TCI failed to identify, with particularity, any technique or work product that the records would disclose, or how their disclosure creates a high probability of revealing such information.
  • To the extent the responsive material is contained in conduct reports, those documents are not categorically covered by the “specific investigatory work product” exemption (Sultaana).
  • The “specific investigatory work product” exemption expires when the underlying trial concludes or the investigation closes (Myers, Caster, Ohio Dept. of Public Safety), so it is not a perpetual bar to access.

For the fourth request (the hearing officer’s report), TCI abandoned the initial rationale that “only charges and dispositions are public” and instead invoked investigatory exemptions again. The Court rejected the argument for the same reason: without an affidavit describing the report’s contents and explaining why disclosure would reveal exempt techniques or work product, the exemption does not apply. The opinion thus implicitly rejects any blanket rule that hearing officer or disciplinary adjudication materials are non-public; instead, they are subject to the Public Records Act and may only be withheld if an exemption is specifically proven.

3) The security-record exemption requires concrete proof

TCI argued that all requested items are “security records” under R.C. 149.433. The Court held that the custodian produced no evidence that the records contain information “directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage” (R.C. 149.433(A)(1)). Without such proof, the exemption cannot be invoked. As with investigatory exemptions, the “security” label cannot substitute for fact-driven, record-specific justification.

4) Procedural rulings: evidence and damages

  • Evidence. The Court granted Snodgrass’s motion to use the sworn/certified exhibits attached to his complaint as evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06, noting his verified complaint and authentication of the kites and requests satisfied the rule.
  • Statutory damages. Although the General Assembly amended R.C. 149.43 effective April 9, 2025 (eliminating statutory damages for persons in ODRC custody), the prior version applied because the action was filed earlier. Even so, the Court denied damages because Snodgrass did not brief the issue, thereby waiving it (Data Trace). Justice Brunner would have awarded $1,000, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Impact

The decision meaningfully strengthens requesters’ ability—incarcerated or not—to obtain prison-related records, including:

  • Device-level information about investigative equipment (e.g., name, manufacturer, supplier, contract terms, and general operating parameters) when not shown to reveal specific, confidential techniques.
  • Disciplinary materials, including investigation-specific documents and hearing officer reports, subject to redaction or withholding only upon a record-specific, fact-supported showing that an exemption applies.

For public offices, especially correctional institutions:

  • Exemption claims must be supported by detailed affidavits describing the records and explaining, with specificity, how disclosure would create a high probability of revealing protected techniques or work product or how the record fits the statutory definition of a “security record.”
  • Administrative rules cannot be applied as categorical bars if they conflict with or extend beyond the Public Records Act’s narrow, statutorily defined exemptions.
  • The “specific investigatory work product” exemption is time-limited; once an investigation ends or any related trial concludes, that particular shield falls away.
  • While R.C. 149.43(B)(3) allows custodians to raise new legal justifications during litigation, those justifications still require competent, particularized evidence.

As for statutory damages, post-April 2025 requests by persons in ODRC custody will not be eligible for damages under the amended statute. Before that amendment, damages remained available but must be preserved by argument; silence waives them.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). Ohio’s law requiring public offices to provide copies of public records within a reasonable time, unless a specific statutory exemption applies.
  • Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Record (CLEIR) (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)). A record pertaining to a law enforcement matter, shielded only to the extent disclosure would likely reveal specific protected information, such as:
    • The identity of an uncharged suspect or a confidential source (A)(2)(a).
    • Specific confidential techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product (A)(2)(c).
  • Specific Investigatory Work Product. Materials reflecting the investigative officer’s thought processes, strategies, or analyses in an investigation. In Ohio, this exemption expires at the end of a criminal trial or once the investigation closes.
  • Security Record (R.C. 149.433). A record that contains information directly used to protect or maintain a public office’s security against attack, interference, or sabotage. The custodian must prove that the record fits this definition; mere assertion is insufficient.
  • Rules Infraction Board (RIB). The prison body that formally adjudicates inmate disciplinary charges. A “hearing officer” may refer matters to the RIB under Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-07(H). The Court’s ruling indicates hearing officer reports are not categorically exempt and must be disclosed absent a specifically proven exemption.
  • Conduct Report. The charging document in a prison disciplinary matter. Under Sultaana, conduct reports do not fall within the “specific investigatory work product” exemption.
  • Conclusive vs. Specific Affidavits. A conclusory affidavit states bottom-line conclusions (e.g., “this is an investigatory technique”) without describing the document or explaining the risk of disclosure. A specific affidavit describes the document’s contents and explains precisely how disclosure fits the statutory exemption. Only the latter can sustain withholding.

Conclusion

Snodgrass v. Trumbull Correctional Institution reinforces—and concretizes—Ohio’s strict approach to public-records exemptions. The Court’s central message is clear: prisons and other public offices cannot shield records by invoking generalized notions of “investigatory techniques,” “work product,” or “security.” They must provide specific, fact-rich explanations showing that the particular records requested would reveal protected information, and even then, the “specific investigatory work product” exemption is time-bound.

The ruling has particular salience for correctional settings: device information used in investigations and disciplinary adjudication materials, including hearing officer reports, are subject to disclosure unless an exemption is proven with specificity. Administrative rules cannot narrow statutory access rights. Procedurally, the Court also confirms that verified complaint exhibits can serve as evidence and that statutory damages must be affirmatively argued, though future inmate requesters are now ineligible for such damages under the 2025 amendment to R.C. 149.43.

In the broader legal context, Snodgrass advances transparency by demanding rigorous, record-specific justifications for nondisclosure. It is a reminder that the Public Records Act’s default is openness, and exceptions remain just that—narrow, carefully proven, and not presumed.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Judge(s)

Comments