A county sheriff must obtain and provide public records in possession of the private companies contracted to operate the county jail.

A county sheriff must obtain and provide public records in possession of the private companies contracted to operate the county jail.

The Columbiana County Sheriff’s Office must obtain and provide public records in possession of the private companies contracted to operate the county jail, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 6-1 per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court found the sheriff’s office could not redirect requests for jail records to the private operators, but has a legal duty to obtain the records and fulfill public records requests. The Court gave Sheriff Brian McLaughlin 21 days to either gather the requested records or notify the requester, Terry Brown, that the records do not exist.

When Brown, a Belmont Correctional Institution inmate, requested records from the Columbiana County Jail in August 2023, the sheriff’s office provided only two of several documents sought. The office told Brown the records were in the hands of the private companies, and the sheriff’s office did not have access to them.

The Court found by state law, the sheriff’s office must have access to all records and documents created by the private operators related to the facility and inmates. Regardless of whether the documents are in the possession of the public office or the private operator, the records are public, and the sheriff’s office has the duty to provide them to the public, the Court concluded.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters joined the opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without a written opinion.

County Jail Privately Operated
Under R.C. 9.06, a county can allow a private company to operate a jail. Since at least 2014, private contractors, not the sheriff’s office, have operated the Columbiana County Jail. Between 2014 and some portion of 2019, Community Education Centers/GEO Group operated the jail. Since 2022, Correctional Solutions Group has been in charge.

R.C. 9.06(B)(9) requires contracts between the county and the private operators to include a “contract monitor.” The monitor must be a county employee who has complete access to the jail and all facility records except the financial records of the private operators. Sergeant Deputy Sheriff Hartley Malone has been the contract monitor during the times relevant to Brown’s records requests.

Inmate Requested Two Sets of Jail Records
Brown sent the sheriff’s office two public records requests related to jail operations. He asked for the 10 items pertaining to the names and positions of employees working at the jail from January 2017 through July 2018. In a second request he sought 15 items regarding the current policies on inmate intake and booking, and the retention of records. The request included procedures for “booking of inmates showing signs of intoxication, impairment, injury, or psychological problems.”

Scherry Wilson, an administrative assistant in the sheriff’s office, sent Brown a letter about two weeks after his request in which she provided two records. One was an information sheet about the contract monitor Malone, and the other was a position description for a sergeant deputy sheriff. The letter informed Brown the office had already provided the record retention schedules he requested.

The letter stated the office had no other records Brown sought because the records were created, kept, and maintained by Correctional Solutions Group. The letter indicated the sheriff’s office does not have access to the company’s records.

Brown sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, compelling the sheriff’s office to fulfill his records request. The sheriff’s office asked the Court to dismiss the case, arguing it provided all requested records and Brown should request the information directly from Correctional Solutions Group.

Supreme Court Analyzed Records Law
Brown asserted the sheriff had access to the records through the contract monitor, and R.C. 9.06(B)(16) mandates that contracts with private operators including a provision requiring maintenance of all documents and records relevant to the facility in the same manner as records in the sheriff’s office.

The sheriff argued the jail administrators are the “functional equivalent” of a public agency, and the jail operators themselves have a duty to disclose the public records in their possession.

The Court stated that whether the private operators have a duty to disclose public records is irrelevant under the quasi-agency test. The Court cited its 1990 State ex rel Mazzaro v. Ferguson decision, which produced the test. The Court explained when a public office contracts with a private entity, the records held by the private entity are public records, if the records are prepared to carry out a public office’s responsibilities. The test also requires the public office to monitor the private entity’s performance and have access to the records.

The opinion stated when a record requester proves the first prong –  records to carry out a public office’s responsibilities – it is enough to meet the quasi-agency test requirements. The Court found the contracts with the private companies created a quasi-agency relationship with the sheriff’s office. To the extent the records Brown requested actually exist, the private operators would have created those records as they carried out the delegated public responsibilities of the sheriff’s office, the Court explained.

The quasi-agency relationship requires the public office to obtain public records and disclose them to record requesters, the opinion stated.

The Court noted the evidence submitted in the case does not show whether either of the two private operators have the records Brown requested or if the records were ever created. The Court directed the sheriff’s office to collect the records Brown sought, or confirm within 21 days if there are no records that respond to his request.

Brown sought statutory damages from the sheriff’s office for failing to promptly comply with his records request. The Court stated it would defer any decision on whether Brown is entitled to any damages until after the office has complied with the Court’s order.

2023-1218. State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-4969.

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.