Category Archives: Public Interest Law

We had planned on an insightful analysis of the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision, for, as our loyal blog readers know, this decision is of keen interest to us.  This is so because we have a “me too” petition pending before the Supreme Court on a case involving very similar issues of law and fact, Wagner v. City of Garfield Heights.  If the U.S. Supreme Court properly follows the Town of Gilbert precedent set today, we should notch our 3rd U.S. Supreme Court win for the firm in only 18 months of existence.  Hopefully, that will come before the end of the month.

But such work detailing the Town of Gilbert decision is not needed, because Professor Volokh in his Volokh Conspiracy column and web page for the Washington Post tackles the analysis for us, here: Supreme Court reaffirms broad prohibition on content-based speech restrictions, in today’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision.

So, read it and rejoice in the affirmation of our First Amendment liberties.  We shall instead of writing, head to the pool!

 

 

 

The Ohio Supreme Court today issued its decision in State ex rel. Carr. v. London Corr. Inst.  There, an inmate had sought under Ohio Public Records Law a copy of a single document, a memo from the prison Chaplain to the mail room staff “listing ministries that regularly send religious material to inmates.”

The records request was quite specific: it “identified the author and recipient and specified a two-month time frame during which the memorandum was sent.”

Despite this specificity, the prison’s response was a rote rejection, stating that the request was overbroad and burdensome.  Amazingly, in this opinion, the 12th District Court of Appeals sided with the prison.

The Ohio Supreme Court today overturned that decision in this 6-1 opinion, with only Justice Lanzinger adopting the reasoning of the 12th Circuit.

The well-written Dispatch article on the case is here.

In a recent Ninth District Court of Appeals case, Teodecki v. Litchfield Township, 2015-Ohio-2309 the former fire chief sued the township and trustees for among other things, breach of contract relating to the release of an investigation report regarding the former chief’s activities in her role as fire chief.

Shortly after the report was completed (but before it was released to the public or any charges brought), Chief Teodecki resigned her position as part of a separation agreement with the Township under with the Township would not to pursue charges against her and (possibly) not to disclose the results of the investigation – whether the confidentiality clause was part of the agreement at the time it was executed is a matter of dispute.

After resigning, Mrs. Teodecki wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing the Township Trustees. The Trustees, seeking apparently to exact some revenge for the letter to the editor, voted to release the investigation report to the public. Mrs. Teodecki then brought suit claiming that Trustees breached the separation agreement by making the investigation report public.

However, as the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled, even assuming the non-disclosure clause was part of the agreement, there was no breach because the Trustees could not legally keep the investigation report from the public. The confidentiality clause was against public policy of open public records, and, absent any of the statutory exemptions mandating release of public records; the investigation report could not be withheld from the public.

The Court’s analysis of the investigation report’s status as a public record is thoughtful and deserves note as well.

We conclude that the Report prepared by Sergeant McDermott following his extensive investigation into the Litchfield Township Fire Department and Mrs. Teodecki falls squarely within R.C. 149.43’s definition of a public record. The Report, which was commissioned by the township and kept in the township’s possession, was a document detailing findings concerning the fire department’s alleged noncompliance with state law. The township’s fire department is without question a public office. Thus, by statute, the Report is required to be disclosed to the general public.

This is a particularly enjoyable case it is rare to see public officials seeking to have Ohio’s public records law read in a keeping with the intent of the law. And, because in this case the old maxim proved true: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

In the continuation of our objective to ease public understanding of basic legal concepts, we today provide this quick tip on Ohio Public Records Law.

The most common mistake we find that citizen activists make in public records requests is to ask questions; to ask that public bodies provide information.

Ohio law gives no obligation to public officials to answer questions of members of the public, or to in a general sense provide “information.”  Rather, Ohio’s public records law requires that public officials provide “public records,” which are either (i) existing documents or (ii) reports of data from existing public databases.

So, when crafting your request to a public body, be sure to ask for records, not answers to questions.

We had hoped for decisions from the US Supreme Court in either Reed v. Town of Gilbert or City of Los Angeles v. Patel.  Reed is now the oldest undecided decision from SCOTUS this term, having been argued back in January.

SCOTUS did announce that they have added a new decision-announcement day this Thursday.  They have 17 decisions to go, an now three decision days on the calendar to release them.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States adjourns for the summer on June 30 and they have announced just three remaining days for the release of decisions: June 15, June 22 and June 29.  The last decision day or two are usually reserved for the biggest decisions, this year King v. Burwell (an important ObamaCare case) and Obergefell v. Hodges (Gay Marriage).

We have our eyes fixed intently on two decisions, that are less prominent than those two, as they impact cases our firm has pending: City of Los Angeles v. Patel, about whether the City of Los Angeles can inspect a hotel register without a search warrant, and Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.  The Los Angeles case directly impacts our pending litigation against the City of Portsmouth, Ohio over its housing inspection ordinance and the Town of Gilbert case deals with issues nearly identical to those argued by us in Frank Wagner v. City of Garfield Heights, which we presently have pending on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because these decisions are less high-profile than some others, we expect they could be released this coming Monday, the 15th.

Stay tuned!

 

I had a chance to meet Shaila Dewan from the New York Times when she wrote a piece on emerging left-right coalitions to oppose municipal policies that oppressed people on the margins of society, here.

She continues her reporting on the ways the police and courts make life unnecessarily more difficult for the poor with this piece in the New York Times, When Bail Is Out of Defendant’s Reach, Other Costs Mount.

We recommend it for a read.

.

 

We wrote here of a counterclaim to an Open Meetings case that was perhaps the most frivolous filing we ever had seen.  And then today in the Washington Post online we see this blogged by Professor Volokh:

City sues critic for supposedly infringing city’s copyright by posting city council video clips (with commentary) on YouTube

This very well could top that once, one short day later.   Maybe there is something in the water.

Oh, the intrigue involved with reading the smoke signals emanating from the U.S. Supreme Court!  For those who love the law, it can be fascinating to watch.

Today, the Court accepted for review  Central Radio Co. v. City of Norfolk, which examines the question as to whether an exemption from a sign ordinance for religious and governmental emblems renders the sign ordinance unconstitutionally content-based.

This question in Central Radio is similar to one the Court has been grappling with for several months in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, heard at oral argument on January 12 of this year.  There, the Court will decide if restrictions placed upon temporary signs due to their content is unconstitutional.  The Town of Gilbert gives favorable treatment to temporary political, ideological and other messages as compared to directional signs placed for church services.

Volohk speculates that SCOTUS’ plan is to “grant, vacate, and remand the case back to the Fourth Circuit” from whence it came in light of the decision in Town of Gilbert, coming before the end of this month.

We expect that the Court’s decision Town of Gilbert will impact on our pending case, Wagner v. Garfield Heights, addressing similar content-based issues.  That interrelationship is addressed here.

Read the Washington Post article analyzing the Central Radio case here.