IN RE MILLER

OPINION AND ORDER OF THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL.

This cause came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on August 19, 1992 at 10:00 a.m. upon the applicant's March 3, 1992 objection and notice of appeal to the February 21, 1992 decision of the single commissioner.

Neither the applicant, Carlos A. Miller, nor anyone on his behalf appeared at the hearing. The Attorney General attended the hearing and moved to waive oral argument. Following a brief discussion of the claim, the panel chairman granted the Attorney General's motion and concluded the hearing.

The single commissioner had denied the applicant's claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A) because the single commissioner found that the applicant had failed to report the criminally injurious conduct within seventy-two hours after its occurrence. However, the facts adduced at the hearing reveal the incident was reported to the Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority, which is a political subdivision of the state of Ohio having its own transit police force, by the bus driver. R.C. 2901.01(K)(2) defines "law enforcement officer" as follows:

"(K) `Law enforcement officer' means any of the following:

"* * *

"(2) An officer, agent, or employee of the state or any of its agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions, upon whom, by statute, a duty to conserve the peace or to enforce all or certain laws is imposed and the authority to arrest violators is conferred, within the limits of such statutory duty and authority[.]"

Therefore, the reporting to Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority officials does constitute the report to an appropriate law enforcement agency required by R.C. 2743.60(A).

From review of the file, with full consideration given to the oral argument presented at the hearing, this panel finds that the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the criminally injurious conduct that gave rise to this claim was not reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities within seventy-two hours after its occurrence. Therefore, we find the applicant's objection and notice of appeal were well taken, and the February 21, 1992 decision of the single commissioner must be reversed. Accordingly, this claim will be referred to the Attorney General for a new finding of fact and recommendation concerning economic loss and remanded to the single commissioner for further determination.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The February 21, 1992 order of the single commissioner is REVERSED;

2. This claim is referred to the Attorney General for further investigation and a new finding of fact and recommendation and remanded to the single commissioner for further determination concerning economic loss;

3. The Attorney General shall file his amended finding of fact and recommendation on or before May 10, 1993;

4. The applicant may respond to the new finding of fact and recommendation within twenty-one days after it is filed by the Attorney General; and

5. Costs be assumed by the reparations fund.

So ordered.

PHILLIP E. PARISI, KARL H. SCHNEIDER and JAMES H. HEWITT III, Commissioners, concur.