BY: Janice Morse
news.cincinnati.com
An appeals court ruled Friday that the names of two Cincinnati police officers who were injured in a 2010 shootout that left an Iron Horsemen motorcycle club member dead can remain secret.
The Enquirer disagrees with the Ohio First District Court of Appeals' decision, said Jack Greiner, a lawyer for the newspaper.
"Our biggest concern is that, contrary to our understanding of the law, this decision gives almost unfettered discretion to the police chief as to what records he wants to release, and we don't think that's a good situation," Greiner said.
The newspaper obtained public records about the Sept. 18, 2010, incident in which Harry Seavey, 51, of Portland, Maine, was fatally shot at a Camp Washington tavern, J.D.'s Honky Tonk and Emporium.
The Enquirer sued Tom Streicher, who was then the city's police chief, for withholding names of the injured officers, which the newspaper believes are releasable under public records laws and are needed to examine further how the incident was handled.
Streicher said the names should be withheld because of fears that the officers could be subject to retaliation. Specifics about his concerns were filed under seal with the appeals court.
The court, in its 17-page ruling, said "the officers' interest in protecting themselves ... outweighs the public's interest in uncovering the individual officers' names."
but this ruling provides the police with the precedent to withhold any and all information and then wait for the withholding to be challanged on a case by case basis. Cops will no longer need to identify themselves when issuing a traffic ticket? NOt too difficult to construct a "fear for their safety" argument. Cops will no longer need to identify themselves period? How long until we're all defendents at Kafka's "Trial"? We're not told what law we broke, we're not permitted to face any of the accusers, and we're not permitted representation.
Slippery slope my friend. The burden should be the other way around: the poilice chief should be required on a case by case basis to demonstrate why he should be permitted to withhold information. The public shoudl NOT be required on a case by case basis to challenge the disclosure and the public interest thereof. Slippery slope pal.
The Enquirer disagrees with the Ohio First District Court of Appeals' decision, said Jack Greiner, a lawyer for the newspaper.
"Our biggest concern is that, contrary to our understanding of the law, this decision gives almost unfettered discretion to the police chief as to what records he wants to release, and we don't think that's a good situation," Greiner said.
The newspaper obtained public records about the Sept. 18, 2010, incident in which Harry Seavey, 51, of Portland, Maine, was fatally shot at a Camp Washington tavern, J.D.'s Honky Tonk and Emporium.
The Enquirer sued Tom Streicher, who was then the city's police chief, for withholding names of the injured officers, which the newspaper believes are releasable under public records laws and are needed to examine further how the incident was handled.
Streicher said the names should be withheld because of fears that the officers could be subject to retaliation. Specifics about his concerns were filed under seal with the appeals court.
The court, in its 17-page ruling, said "the officers' interest in protecting themselves ... outweighs the public's interest in uncovering the individual officers' names."
but this ruling provides the police with the precedent to withhold any and all information and then wait for the withholding to be challanged on a case by case basis. Cops will no longer need to identify themselves when issuing a traffic ticket? NOt too difficult to construct a "fear for their safety" argument. Cops will no longer need to identify themselves period? How long until we're all defendents at Kafka's "Trial"? We're not told what law we broke, we're not permitted to face any of the accusers, and we're not permitted representation.
Slippery slope my friend. The burden should be the other way around: the poilice chief should be required on a case by case basis to demonstrate why he should be permitted to withhold information. The public shoudl NOT be required on a case by case basis to challenge the disclosure and the public interest thereof. Slippery slope pal.
