## Facts

- A newspaper previously obtained a consent order requiring a city police department to comply with Ohio’s Public Records Act.
- In April 1993, the newspaper requested (1) internal investigations (1988–1993), (2) 1992 incident reports or traffic tickets, and (3) names and personnel files of all police officers.
- The police department conditioned inspection on: (a) review at a predetermined time, (b) only one reporter reviewing, and (c) reimbursement for staff time assisting with review.
- The department later restricted inspection hours to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. on weekdays, despite having previously allowed broader weekday access and operating 24 hours a day.
- After delays, the department produced only a small fraction of the requested documents and announced a $5-per-page copying charge.
- The newspaper filed an original mandamus action seeking (a) an order compelling compliance with the Public Records Act, (b) 24/7 access to records, (c) copies at actual cost without labor charges, and (d) attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether a police department that operates 24/7 must allow inspection of public records at all times of operation, rather than only at reasonable times during regular business hours under R.C. 149.43(B).
2. Whether restricting inspection to a narrow three-hour weekday window can be an unreasonable limitation under R.C. 149.43(B).
3. Whether “actual cost” for copies under R.C. 149.43(B) permits additional charges for labor or employee time.
4. Whether mandamus relief and attorney’s fees were warranted based on the department’s restrictions, delays, and fee practices.

## Decision

- The court granted the writ in part and denied it in part.
- It rejected a categorical requirement of 24-hour access, holding that the statute requires availability at all reasonable times during regular business hours.
- It held that copy charges must reflect actual cost and may not include labor or employee time.
- It recognized mandamus as the proper remedy to enforce public-records rights when access is denied or unreasonably restricted.
- It declined to impose relief broader than the statute’s requirements and treated attorney’s fees as discretionary, dependent on whether respondents’ conduct amounted to unreasonable or bad-faith noncompliance.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 149.43(B), public records must be promptly prepared and made available for inspection “at all reasonable times during regular business hours,” and an agency’s operational hours do not automatically define “regular business hours.”
- Public-records statutes are construed to favor disclosure; doubts are resolved in favor of access.
- “Actual cost” of copies excludes charges for labor or employee time; only direct reproduction expenses may be charged.
- Public offices may adopt reasonable administrative arrangements for inspection, but restrictions that substantially delay or effectively defeat access can violate the statute.
- Mandamus is an appropriate enforcement mechanism when access to public records is denied or unreasonably limited, and attorney’s fees may be awarded in the court’s discretion based on the facts.

## Conclusion

The court required the police department to comply with Ohio’s Public Records Act, including limiting copy fees to actual reproduction cost without labor charges, while refusing to require 24/7 inspection access solely because the department operated around the clock and evaluating access-hour restrictions under a context-specific reasonableness standard.


State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St. 3d 619, 640 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 1994)