BSSA tells O'Leary ''county of residence'' means ''county of residence

June 17, 2004
Sidney Daily News

Prosecutor to probe release of information
Miami County official to investigate why addresses for CCW permit holders issued

A special prosecutor will investigate allegations against Shelby County Sheriff Kevin O'Leary regarding information on people issued permits in Shelby County to carry concealed weapons.

Shelby County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Stevenson announced the move Wednesday afternoon.

Stevenson said Judge John D. Schmitt of Shelby County Common Pleas Court has signed an order entry designating Miami County Prosecuting Attorney Gary Nasal, or an assistant of his choosing, "to investigate any possible allegation against Sheriff Kevin O'Leary."

The matter involves the release of names and addresses of people issued permits to carry concealed weapons in Shelby County. The list, with addresses, was subsequently published in the Sidney Daily News.

O'Leary maintained that wording of the new Ohio law was open to interpretation and that he interpreted it to mean that release of addresses was permissible.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, O'Leary reported that he had contacted Robert Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association, to interpret the law as it pertains to the release of permit holder information.

Cornwell advised O'Leary that the state association had addressed the concealed carry law in a morning board meeting.

The board, at the request of O'Leary, has interpreted the law to authorize the release of names, date of birth, and "county of residence" only, and not specific address.

The sheriff said he is satisfied with the board's interpretation and from now on will provide the media, upon written request, the full name, county resided in, and date of birth of permit holders, but not their addresses.

O'Leary also asked the sheriff's association for an opinion on what qualifies or defines "public interest" for the media in order to be entitled to the information on concealed carry permit holders.

The board will take the request to a county prosecutor, who by law can then request an opinion on the matter from the Ohio Attorney General.

Commentary:
The Ohio Attorney General's office has already weighed in on this question.

On June 9, the day after the Sidney Daily News published these addresses, a document entitled "Use of Personally Identifying Information" (.pdf), which has been posted on that office's website for some time, was updated to include the following statement:

In limited instances, a journalist may make a written request to a county sheriff to obtain a licensee’s name, date of birth, county and the type of license (standard or temporary/ emergency) issued.

To see the original Sidney Daily News media request to Sheriff O'Leary, which is clearly not a "limited" request, click here.

The fact that Sheriff O'Leary had to ask what the definition of "county of residence" should be an embarrassment to the citizens of his county. This man is an elected official, whose job is to enforce Ohio law.

According to an attorney in OFCC's Office of General Counsel, the phrase "County of Residence" is mentioned in 39 sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Two sections actually make reference to "County of Residence" and "Residential Address" as seperate entities.

Nine sections make reference to "County of Residence" and some variation of
"Residence w/ 5 words of Address".

Fifteen sections of the 39 sections of the ORC mention "Address" as a
seperate entity distinguishable from "County of Residence".

County of Residence is mentioned in 43 sections of the Ohio Administrative Code.

Of the 43 sections of the OAC none mention the term Residential
Address but 20 sections mention Address as a seperate entity distinguishable from County of Residence.

Prior to releasing the home addresses, the Sheriff could have:

1.) Contacted the prosecutor's office for interpretation,
2.) Contacted the [Attorney General] for interpretation,
3.) Contacted [Buckeye State Sheriffs Assiciation] for interpretation, or
4.) Filed a declaratory judgment action.

"He did none of these things," said Ken Hanson, attorney representing ten of the license-holders whose protected information was published.

"If he wants to now argue mistaken interpretation, in the face of this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he should be allowed to do so in front of a jury of his peers. The other 87 Sheriffs have managed to get it right," Hanson said.

Related Stories:
Special Prosecutor Appointed to Investigate Release of Protected Records

New online poll tests Shelby Co. Sheriff's assertions about ''vague'' law

Sidney Daily News and Shelby Co. Sheriff maintain they committed no crimes

Shelby Co. Sheriff releases CHL-holders' protected, private information to media