The Court ordered Kent police to pay $1,000 to a city resident for failure to turn over bodycam and dashcam video of an arrest.

The Court ordered Kent police to pay $1,000 to a city resident for failure to turn over bodycam and dashcam video of an arrest.

The Kent Police Department must pay $1,000 to a city resident for failing to promptly fulfill a public records request for video of an arrest, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

Matthew Lusane requested any and all video from an April 2022 incident. He received police body camera and cruiser dashboard camera videos that revealed the events up to the point of arrest. The police department told Lusane that the portions of the video covering the arrest were exempt from Ohio public records law.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ordered the department to release the unredacted, full versions of the videos to Lusane.

Record Request Response Questioned
Lusane hand-delivered the request to the police department on April 1, the day of the incident. Court records described an arrest for operating a vehicle while impaired and other misdemeanor charges

Four days later, the Kent police captain emailed Lusane, explaining the case was still open and that the county prosecutor would have to authorize the release of the videos. The police chief’s secretary then emailed Lusane and stated the department determined the videos fell under an exception to the public records act in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h): confidential law enforcement investigatory records.

Lusane sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court compelling the city to release all the video footage and award him damages for the lack of compliance with the public records law.

City Law Director Hope Jones responded to Lusane’s complaint by noting that all videos up to the point of arrest were provided to Lusane. The response also noted that not all of the video was confidential and admitted that the payment of damages “may be in order.”

Citing its 2016 State ex. rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety decision, the Court stated the public records law allows portions of dashcam video to be redacted based on the confidential records exemption. The opinion stated that the Kent Police Department provided no explanation as to why redacting the video at the point of arrest was proper.

The Court ordered the police department to turn over the unredacted videos. It also noted that under the public records act, a public office that fails to comply with public records requests can be fined at a rate of $100 per day up to $1,000. Since Kent has yet to provide Lusane the complete records, it must also pay the maximum $1,000 sanction, the Court concluded.

Lusane never stated in the court documents why he wanted to the video. Ohio public records law does not require a requestor to state a reason for requesting a record.

2022-0441. State ex rel. Lusane v. Kent Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-480.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.