The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the city of Akron has the right to withhold the names of eight police officers involved in the 2022 shooting of Jayland Walker, a motorist whose death led to widespread protests. According to the Court's judgment, while the Akron Beacon Journal will receive some of the requested records, the officers who fired at Walker will be redacted, as reported by Court News Ohio.
The decision is based on an exception in the Ohio Public Records Act for confidential law enforcement investigatory records. This exception allows anonymity for individuals who are considered uncharged suspects. Despite not being indicted by a grand jury, the eight officers could potentially face a federal investigation, categorizing them under this protective rule of confidentiality.
In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner would have mandated the release of a more comprehensive set of records without redaction, including personnel files and any disciplinary records or internal investigations relating to officers investigated for shootings before Walker's. Justice Michael P. Donnelly aligned with Brunner's perspective. On the other hand, other Justices agreed with the ruling, which specified that the identities of two other officers involved in separate 2022 incidents must be disclosed as they are not considered criminal suspects.
Following the incident in June 2022, where police believed Walker fired a gun from his car during a pursuit, which later led to his death from officer gunfire, the Beacon Journal embarked on a mission to collect records of the incident securely. They aimed to stand firm in their right to information, leading to their partial victory in the Supreme Court decision. However, the verdict also reflects limitations to that access, keeping specific identities concealed for safety concerns.
The Court clarified that although the newspaper's requests were valid, the city's right to redact officers' names was justifiable under the Public Records Act, which shelters uncharged suspects. The names of officers involved in previous incidents who were not under criminal suspicion are to be shared with the newspaper as a part of their request. These intricacies of the ruling delineate the fine line public institutions walk between revealing information that serves the common welfare and preserving personal safety and legal integrity.
