Last Tuesday, Attorney General Yost issued formal Opinion No. 2024-007 in response to a request submitted by the Honorable Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor. The opinion answers several questions regarding the duties of the Clerk of Courts pursuant to Mary’s Law to redact certain identifying information of crime victims from public documents prior to any release.
The opinion contains these conclusions:
1. The protection afforded a crime victim’s information by R.C. 2930.07 (name, address, or other identifying information) applies to criminal or delinquent cases, and it attaches to the case documents associated with those cases. In civil matters, it applies only when protected “case documents” from criminal cases are used or sought for use in the civil case.
2. A clerk of courts is not required to automatically or preemptively redact a victim’s information from all records relating to a civil protection order prior to a violation of the order. The redaction requirement is triggered only when the protection order is violated. For a violation of a protection order, an offense of violence, or a sexually oriented offense, the requirement to redact documents for that case applies automatically when the criminal or delinquent matter is filed with the clerk of courts; the victim does not need to file a specific request pursuant to R.C. 2930.07(D)(1)(a)(ii).
3. Amendments to R.C. 2930.07(D) and R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(rr) after the decision in State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, 2020-Ohio-5585 now provide specific exemptions to the public records laws for crime victims and prohibit the release of unredacted records in a criminal or delinquent case. The protection of redacting a victim’s information does not extend to civil cases, except when documents from a delinquent or criminal case are used or sought for use in civil matters. Then only redacted documents may be used.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Lindsay
Comments