Category Archives: Public Interest Law

The concept that man is subject to the rule of law, rather than the rule of law being subject to the whim of man, was birthed 800 years ago this month with the execution of and affixing of his royal seal upon the Magna Carta at Runnymede by King John.

The Wall Street Journal, here, has an excellent article on the world-changing importance of this document, and all freedoms that flowed therefrom: “uncensored newspapers, security of property, equality before the law, habeas corpus, regular elections, sanctity of contract, jury trials.of the things.”

But this 800 years of freedom is, and always has been, under constant threat.  We all must remain vigilant.

Finney Law Firm attorney Curt C. Hartman Thursday night presents to Empower U Ohio on Ohio Open Meetings and Public Records.  It is at 7 PM at the Deer Park Community Center, 7640 Plainfield Road.

The Finney Law Firm, led by Mr. Hartman encyclopedic knowledge of Ohio’s Open Meetings and Public Records laws, has a robust practice in the area of Ohio Open Meetings and Public Records, leading to greater accountability on public records.

The details on the class are here.

As our readers know, Ohio’s Public Records laws have been rendered somewhat less effective than previously by recent Ohio Supreme Court rulings, making the pursuit of such cases more difficult.  As a result, public agencies are even more reluctant to produce public records.

Thus, comes today’s announcement from State Auditor David Yost that his office has implemented a process as a part of State audits of public entities.  Now they will accept and investigate complaints about non-compliance with public records requests, and make a negative notation in their audit reports for failure to comply.

You may read that story in today’s Columbus Dispatch here.

We are used to seeing cruiser camera videos of DUI arrests, and other police activities on the evening news.  This is so, at least in part, because Ohio public records law provides that these videos are public records.

But as we reported here, at least Ohio’s 12th District Court of Appeals ruled in May of last year that these videos are not public records under Ohio law, meaning citizens and news organizations have no right to obtain them.  This conflicts with rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court and other Ohio appellate districts.

With the protection of the 12th District opinion, the Ohio State Highway Patrol is apparently now broadly taking the position that cruiser camera videos are not public records.  Today’s Enquirer reports here that the newspaper has filed a direct mandamus action before the Ohio Supreme Court to force a ruling on the issue.

The Enquirer is seeking the cruiser cam video, the 911 tape, and the police report of an incident in January of this year involving a police chase from Warren County into Hamilton County.  The Ohio Highway Patrol apparently did not cite a legal basis for the denial of the records, as the law requires, but rather simply said it was acting at the request of the Prosecutor, which is not an exception to production under the law.

We anxiously await a clear pronouncement from the Ohio Supreme Court on the topic.  The last public records decision we received from the Ohio Supreme Court took 11 ½ months after full briefing for them to make a decision, so it may be a while.

Can the voters of a State take from the legislature the prerogative to draw lines of legislative districts and place it in the hands of an independent redistricting commission?

That is the issue squarely  before the United States Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Redistricting Commission, heard at oral argument on March 2.

The United States Constitution at Article 1 Section 4 seems to place the responsibility for setting the “Times., Places and Manner” of elections in the hands of the several legislatures, but the question is whether the electors of a State can modify that right by ballot initiative.

It’s a simple but important question.  The answer should be in hand no later than the end of May.

It is a Herculean accomplishment for an appellate attorney to have a case accepted at the United States Supreme Court.  After all, they take only about 75 cases per cycle out of more than 10,000 petitions requesting that they take a case.  That’s a 99.3% rejection rate.  Most attorneys go through their entire career never asking to have a case accepted at the Supreme Court.  A tiny fraction of those applying ever have one accepted.

Thus, lightening struck two times in the first year of the Finney Law Firm when the Supreme Court accepted and reversed two cases from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals for our clients.

As we addressed here, this year the Finney Law Firm had another petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, a First Amendment case addressing yard sign regulation in the City of Garfield Heights, Ohio.  That case has virtually identical legal issues to another case before the Supreme Court, Reed v. Town of Gilbert that was heard on oral argument on January 12th of this year.  A decision in the Reed case is expected before the end of April.  Thus, we wrote in our certiorari petition to the Supreme Court that the Court should dispose of the Garfield Heights case in the same manner as the Reed case.

Friday, that petition was considered in conference by the US  Supreme Court.  And … all we can say with certainty is they did not deny the petition, as the Court does with 99% of the petitions before it.  Rather, it appears to us at present that they agree with our argument that the case mirrors the Reed case, and is holding our petition pending disposition of that case.

If so, it’s not quite like having another oral argument at the Supreme Court as we did just after Easter of last year, but it is still an utterly remarkable accomplishment.

Congratulations to attorney Curt Hartman and our Public Interest law team on this great achievement, three times in two years!