COLUMBUS — In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a former Nelsonville couple against the city, the two sides disagree on many issues. But they concur on one point — both think the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) should release some records for use as evidence in the suit. The agency to this point has refused to do so.
Apparently the plaintiffs, Ashley Klinedinst and Bobby Hunt, and the Nelsonville officials named as defendants, both believe that the records in question, from the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS), will help their side win the case. Unfortunately for both sides, however, ODPS is taking the view that all LEADS records enjoy absolute protection from being shared with anyone outside law enforcement — even if they’re subpoenaed in a federal lawsuit.
LEADS is a computerized system that enables law enforcement agencies to access information from other agencies around the country; if a police officer pulls you over and “runs your plates,” they’re probably using LEADS.
Klinedinst and Hunt are suing the city over their arrests in June 2022, which they claim were made without legitimate cause. The police had come to their home in connection with the claim that Hunt had been riding a motorcycle around town without a license. He and Klinedinst want information from LEADS showing whether the Nelsonville Police submitted any inquiries to the system about Hunt and/or his motorcycle in the three months prior to the arrests, and if so, when these inquiries were made.
They believe this information will shed light on the question of whether there was or was not probable cause to arrest them — and the defendants agree that it will.
The plaintiffs have tried to obtain the records and so far have failed; most recently they filed a motion to compel ODPS to comply with a subpoena. Nelsonville was reportedly ready to share a copy of the LEADS information with the plaintiffs, but was told by ODPS that to do so would be illegal.
Now the defendants have added their voice to the plaintiffs’ request. In a document filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Columbus, an attorney for Nelsonville argues that ODPS should turn over an activity report showing the dates and times that Hunt was run through LEADS, or in the alternative, Nelsonville should be allowed to share the LEADS report it has obtained from the agency, containing the information sought by the plaintiffs.
Attorney Thomas N. Spyker notes that ODPS claims that “a broad and unbinding privilege,” based on Ohio Administrative Code, protects LEADS records from disclosure. The defense attorney maintains, however, that as this is a federal case, any claim to privilege must be analyzed under federal common law, not state law.
He adds, though, that such an analysis shouldn’t be necessary, because even if the court assumes that a privilege exists, it should still order the records released under a “self-protection exception,” to allow the city to use the records to defend itself from claims in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit.
This exception, Spyker says, is “recognized in every other privilege context,” and he cites case law confirming, for example, the right of attorneys and physicians to violate client or patient confidentiality if they need to do so to protect themselves in a lawsuit.
“Here, defendants are authorized users of LEADS, presumably used LEADS in connection with their law enforcement duties and are now facing civil liability in connection with that conduct,” Spyker reasons. “Just like lawyers and doctors, defendants must be afforded an exception to a LEADS privilege in order to use relevant records to defend against these claims of wrongdoing.”
Spyker goes on to contend that if the court looks in federal law for privilege protecting LEADS records, it should not find it — and he notes that a federal evidence rule gives courts flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis, in which they should balance the policy interests served by protecting a state privilege against the policy interests served by allowing access to documents for use in a federal case.
In this instance, he argues, the state privilege is meant to protect sensitive information used by law enforcement. What the parties are asking for, however, he says, is just an activity report, listing the dates and times Nelsonville Police ran Hunt through LEADS — “In other words, it is a record evidencing the functioning of the system, not records maintained in the system.” And on the other side of the balance, he says, is the need for key evidence in “a federal lawsuit alleging serious constitutional violations.”
Also relevant, he suggests, is the fact that both of the contending parties in the lawsuit believe that what’s revealed in the records could settle, if not the entire suit, at least some significant issue or issues within it.
“The parties agree, the LEADS Activity Report is likely dispositive in nature,” he states (emphasis in original).
Email at jphillips@logandaily.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0