COLUMBUS — The parties in a federal lawsuit against the city of Nelsonville continue to dispute whether a state agency should have to turn over law enforcement records for use as evidence in the suit — though in this case, both the plaintiffs and defendants have asked that the records be produced, but the state agency is refusing.
At issue are logs from the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS), a computerized system that police officers use to access information from other law enforcement agencies around the country.
Bobby Hunt and Ashley Klinedinst, the couple suing Nelsonville in U.S. District Court in Columbus, claim that city police arrested them without probable cause in June 2022.
Officers had come to their home in connection with a police complaint that claimed Hunt had been riding his motorcycle in town without a license. They want records from LEADS showing any inquiries the Nelsonville Police made to the system about Hunt or his motorcycle in the months prior to the incident, in order to help establish whether the police had probable cause to come to their home and then arrest them.
The city and its officials who are named as defendants in the suit also want the LEADS information released, for much the same reason. Both sides have indicated that they think the records could potentially resolve the lawsuit.
The Ohio Department of Public Safety, however, is taking the position that any records produced by LEADS are absolutely protected from disclosure for any non-law enforcement purpose — in which category they include use as evidence in a lawsuit.
In a recent court filing, an attorney for the city argued that there is no federal privilege protecting LEADS records because the privilege is based on state law, and that even if there is such a privilege, it can be overridden by the “self-protection exception” in common law, which allows parties to access normally protected information if they need it to defend themselves against claims in a civil suit. For example, this exception has allowed attorneys to breach attorney-client confidentiality for this reason.
In a brief filed Monday, ODPS responded that this claim is “patently wrong,” in that the self-protection exception applies exclusively to attorney-client privilege, and “has never been extended beyond that very limited application.”
The agency also disputes the claim that there is no recognized federal privilege to LEADS because the privilege arises from a state statute. This assertion, according to ODPS, “is belied by the case law. This court has found that LEADS information is privileged under both state and federal law.”
Finally, the brief suggests, there are other ways of getting the information that is being sought from LEADS — for example, by questioning the police officers who made (or did not make) the LEADS inquiries about Hunt. “It is not necessary to breach the confidentiality of the LEADS system or eviscerate the statutory privilege so the parties can obtain this information directly from the LEADS system,” the brief declares.
In a reply to ODPS, the plaintiffs’ attorney Daniel H. Klos notes that the state agency has said that LEADS information can’t be subject to discovery in a lawsuit, because it “can only be shared for criminal justice purposes.”
Klos points out, however, that Ohio Administrative Code does not use the term “criminal justice purposes,” but says instead that LEADS records should be used only for “the administration of criminal justice.” He then proceeds to argue that Hunt and Klinedinst are in fact seeking the records to aid in “the administration of criminal justice,” because their lawsuit addresses the issue of whether or not their right to due process was violated.
“Although the plaintiffs’ causes of action are in the nature of a civil action, the substance of the harm alleged flows directly from the administration of criminal justice through public law enforcement purposes,” he insists.
Email at jphillips@logandaily.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0