Two Columbus police officers fired on by an armed robbery suspect are “crime victims” under the Marsy’s Law provision in the Ohio Constitution, and their identities can be redacted from public records, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority rejected a Columbus Dispatch request for unredacted footage from the dashboard and body cameras of two unidentified officers who were targeted by a criminal offender during a shootout in the middle of Interstate 70 near Columbus in July 2023.

The city of Columbus provided redacted footage to the newspaper and cited four exemptions under the Ohio Public Records Act to limit the information released. One exemption cited the “Victim Privacy Law,” which was enacted after Ohioans approved Marsy’s Law, a 2017 constitutional amendment to enhance the rights of crime victims. The Victim Privacy Law, R.C. 2930.07, allows victims of crimes to exempt identifying information from public records.

The Dispatch sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to direct the city to provide all the footage, and it argued that police officers do not meet the definition of crime victims when they are injured in the line of duty. Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that Marsy’s Law provides a definition of a victim, which includes any person against whom a criminal offense is committed or who is directly harmed by a criminal offense.

“Applying the plain text of the amendment, we have no difficulty concluding that an ordinary understanding of Marsy’s Law’s definition of victim encompasses the officers in this case,” he wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Patrick F. Fischer stated that identifying information about the first two officers on the scene, labeled as Officer John Doe 1 and Officer John Doe 2, could be redacted from the records provided to the Dispatch. However, he disagreed with the majority’s finding that the Dispatch was only seeking recordings made by and identifying the two officers. He noted six other officers joined the incident, and the city has not revealed their identities. He would make additional recordings from the incident available to the newspaper.

In a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Jennifer Brunner stated that the majority of the court was unconstitutionally applying Marsy’s Law in this case. She explained that, while police officers may be victims under the state’s Victim Privacy Law, R.C. 2930.07, officers who are on duty in public do not have an expectation of privacy, and the public’s constitutional right to have access to government records outweighs the officers’ rights to keep their identities concealed under the statute or even the recent Marsy’s Law amendment to Ohio’s constitution.

Officer Injured, Suspect Killed in Shootout
Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2 responded to a radio call about armed men who robbed a car dealership. The officers spotted the suspects’ car on I-70 and gave chase. The suspects stopped their vehicle in the middle of the highway. Two men jumped out and ran away.

As Doe 1 left his cruiser and began to chase the men, a third suspect emerged and fired his gun at Doe 1, shooting him five times at close range. The two officers returned fire at the suspect. Other officers arrived at the scene, and in a barrage of gunfire, the suspect was shot dead. Doe 1 was transported to the hospital. He underwent seven surgeries and survived.

The day of the shooting, the Dispatch made a public records request to the Columbus Police Department (CPD) for “all body camera, dash camera and 911 calls etc.” from the shootout. Four days later, CPD denied all dashcam and bodycam footage based on four exemptions to R.C. 149.43, the Public Records Act.  Several weeks later, CPD released portions of the bodycam footage, redacting it to conceal the officers’ identities and ending the video before the shooting starts.

After the newspaper requested that the Court order the release, CPD submitted four unredacted videos under seal for the justices to review. CPD argued it was not required to provide the unredacted footage because R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(rr) excludes certain crime-victim information from the definition of a public record.

Supreme Court Holds That Police Officers May Be Victims Who are Entitled to Protection Under Victims’ Rights Amendment
The opinion explained with the passage of Marsy’s Law, the Ohio Constitution defines “crime victim” in Article I, Section 10a. The Victim Privacy Law adopted the same definition as the constitution. Under the law, a crime victim can request that identifying information be removed from case documents before any public release of the information.

The Court noted the Dispatch advanced several legal arguments to claim that police officers could never be victims when they were performing their public duties. The newspaper argued the definition is ambiguous and that because police officers are officers of the state, a voter would not have wanted officers to have privacy rights enforceable against the public.

The Court held that under the plain text of Marsy’s Law police officers could be victims.  It explained that the constitution defines a victim as “a person against whom” a criminal act is committed. Because the offender committed a criminal act, when he shot at the police officers, they were victims under Marsy’s law. And because the General Assembly adopted the constitutional definition when it passed the Victim Privacy Law, CPD had the right to redact the bodycam and dashcam footage, the Court concluded.

Broader Review of Records Required, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion Maintained
Justice Fischer agreed with the majority that Officer John Doe 1 and Officer John Doe 2 were victims under the Victim Privacy Law and could have their information redacted under the Public Records Act. Justice Fischer reached that conclusion under the former version of the Public Records Act, which was effective at the time that the Dispatch made its records request.

But Justice Fischer disagreed with the majority that the Dispatch was entitled to no records and instead would have granted a partial writ of mandamus. The newspaper had sought all the footage from the shooting that was not exempted by the Public Records Act. CPD admitted that it had withheld information relating to eight officers who were involved, two being the officers who were victims and six other officers who were not victims.

The unredacted footage provided by CPD showed that at least three cruisers and six other officers had arrived at the scene after the suspect had abandoned his weapon and ran away, Justice Fischer explained. And that footage showed that at least two other officers shot at the suspect. But CPD submitted for review only the bodycam records from the two officers who were victims and the dashcam records from their cruiser and another cruiser driven by an officer who was not a victim. Justice Fischer supposed that that CPD misunderstood the scope of the Dispatch’s request but concluded that CPD could not withhold the requested records regarding the officers who were not victims because those records were not excepted under the Public Records Act.

Withholding Footage Violates State Constitution, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion Asserted
Justice Brunner wrote the Ohio Constitution guarantees Ohioans the right to access information about their government, and those rights ensure the government does not obstruct the flow of information needed by the people.

She wrote that the Court is confronted by a conflict between two constitutional guarantees: a victim’s right to privacy and the public’s access to government records. While a victim’s right to privacy would normally take precedence over the public’s right to government records, this would be an exception, the opinion stated.

She noted there is no comprehensive or accepted definition of privacy, and in this situation, it is essential to consider the public official’s expectation of privacy.

“Because the officers were on duty and performing their duties in a public place, I would hold that they did not have an expectation of privacy in their names and identities. That is particularly true given that a directive of the Columbus Police Department provides that the department’s personnel ‘shall give their name and badge/tech/IBM number to any person upon request’ and that ‘[u]niformed sworn personnel shall display their identification card to any person upon request or as soon as safe and practical.’” she wrote.

Applying this reasoning to this incident, she stated that the video footage could be redacted that showed the Columbus police officers being injured as victims, but the rest of the footage that concealed their identities was unconstitutionally redacted and should be ordered to be produced.

2023-1327. State ex rel. GateHouse Media Holdings II Inc. v. Columbus Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5243.

View oral argument video of this case.

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.