Media exception to privacy protections abused again

This time it's two law enforcement officers whose home addresses were obtained by the media and inappropriately published

August 18, 2004
Mt. Vernon News

MOUNT VERNON — A hot button, and a somewhat confusing legal issue, was brought to the local forefront last week when the home addresses of two Mount Vernon Police officers were released in a complaint that eventually found its way into the public eye.

The complaint was part of a police misconduct lawsuit, filed on behalf of Thomas Burr, 25, and Marie Stump, 18, against the two officers and the city. The suit alleges police misconduct, including unlawful assault, unlawful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

The officer’s addresses should not have been made available to public eyes, said Mount Vernon Police Chief Tom Bartlett.

“I’m OK with the names of the individuals involved being printed, but I don’t see where it serves any purpose to have the addresses of the officers printed,” he said. “By the nature of this job, there are a lot of people out there that might have an interest in where a law enforcement officer lives.

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

“There has been a lot of argument for a lot of years,” he added. “But I personally do not think it’s appropriate to release the residential information of a law enforcement official.”

The argument Bartlett refers to is now in the appellate court system, where federal judges and district appellate courts have fought over this idea for, as he said, years.

In Ohio this issue was brought to the forefront in the case of three Columbus Police Department undercover narcotics officers who sought a court order blocking the city from releasing their personal information.

The defense attorney in one of the trio’s narcotics cases had previously shared personnel information with the defendants; the officers argued that further release of records could jeopardize them and their families.

In 1998 an appeals court sided with the officers, saying that a police officer’s home address, the identities of their family members and their disciplinary files are not public record and therefore can be withheld from release. But a 2001 decision by Federal Judge George Smith changed all that ... sort of.

Smith’s decision voided the court of appeals decision, and the same appeals court dismissed the case when it again came before the court in 2002. So, for the time being at least, Smith’s decision is the definitive one ... sort of.

According to the State Attorney Generals office, the Ohio Revised Code is the only firm rule book used to clearly define state law as it pertains to the issue. That code states the personal address of a police officer is not public record, but that the press is entitled to the information.

Some see this as a bit of a catch 22, and what has not been established is exactly what happens when an authorized source makes available to the public information it was entitled to, but that the public is not entitled to.

So although there are firm rules, application of those rules are anything but certain. Hence the appellate wrangling. Issues regarding the concealed carry law — a law that has been firmly established, but in which many gray areas remain to be flushed out — have been likened to the controversy and confusion surrounding release of officer’s information.

That flushing happens in the higher courts, where, despite recent setbacks, Bartlett hopes someday officers will be fully protected from public access to their home addresses.

“I would guess that over time some groups will make every effort to get the law changed so that information like this cannot be released,” he said.

Commentary:
This problem presents yet another opportunity for law enforcement lobbyists and Ohioans For Concealed Carry to work together to improve Ohio law. According to this news story, rules regarding media access to law enforcement officers' personal information are the same as they currently are for concealed handgun license-holders.

For both groups, the media has proven it cannot be trusted with this privilege.