Pubdate: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 Source: Dayton Daily News (OH) Contact: http://www.activedayton.com/partners/ddn/ Forum: http://www.activedayton.com/entertainment/forums_chat/ OHIO SUPREME COURT RULING LIMITS ACCESS TO OFFICERS' RECORDS * The Court Says Privacy Concerns Shield Information About Family And Health. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a criminal defendant may inspect a police officer's personnel files, but cannot obtain personal information such as the officer's home address or names of children. The ruling came in the case of Carl J. Faehl, who was indicted last April in U.S. District Court in Dayton on charges of conspiracy to distribute large amounts of cocaine and marijuana. Faehl's attorney, assistant federal Public Defender Beth Goldstein Lewis, requested the right to inspect and copy all personnel and internal affairs records relating to Miami County Sheriff's Detective Paul Reece. In May 1998, federal prosecutors sought an order to stop Faehl from getting the information. The prosecutors asserted that disclosing the records would violate Reece's right to privacy and would give Faehl and his attorneys records they would not otherwise be entitled to in a criminal case. They also said the records should not be released because Reece and his wife have been targets of threats in connection with Reece's investigation of a drug organization, allegedly involving Faehl. Lewis hailed Wednesday's decision and said, "We will be most likely be filing a new request of the Miami County Sheriff's Department" for information about Reece. But state Rep. Jeff Jacobson, R-Phillipsburg, said the ruling is also a "tremendous victory" for law enforcement officers. Jacobson said the ruling "upholds 100 percent" a bill now pending in the legislature that would exempt personal information about police officers from Ohio's Public Records Act. He said the bill would "make clear that the public has a right to look at a police officer's performance and all kinds of things about his background, but not involving his family, his personal bank accounts" and similar information. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also has found that personal information about police officers and their families is not part of the public record. The Ohio Supreme Court held that those portions of the records "that contain the names of the officers' children, spouses, parents, home addresses, telephone numbers, beneficiaries, medical information and the like" are not public and should be protected "by the constitutional right of privacy." "On the other hand, any records needed by a defendant in a criminal case that reflect on discipline, citizen complaints, or how an officer does her or his job can be obtained." - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D