In 2017 Ohioans overwhelmingly supported a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment called the Equal Rights for Crime Victims Amendment, commonly known as Marsy’s Law. The ACLU of Ohio opposed the initiative due to a number of concerns about how the amendment would interfere with the constitutional rights of defendants. Eight years later, Marsy’s Law is making headlines again, as the Supreme Court of Ohio prepares to consider whether police officers' identities should be protected as crime victims.
After voters approved the amendment in 2017, Ohio lawmakers amended the state law by introducing troubling language to implement Marsy’s Law. Prior to this change, crime victims were able to opt-in for protections such as keeping their identities private. The change made by lawmakers switched this to opt-out protection. On its face, this may seem innocuous or even helpful, but the consequences are not. This was a flip from presumed transparency to the absence thereof.
In passing this law, the Ohio Legislature created circumstances under which the identities of state actors who have harmed members of the public are automatically kept from the public because they are entitled to victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law. As a result, instead of transparency in the wake of violence between the state and a civilian, the public sees nothing or very little about the government actor involved in the harm. Even some original supporters of the Marsy’s Law campaign have made clear that this was not their intent, but the Ohio Legislature has not acted to resolve this issue.
Ohio is not unique in this predicament. The same issue also percolated in other states that passed versions of Marsy’s Law. Before litigation put an end to the practice, at least half of Florida’s 30 largest police agencies applied the protection to the names of on-duty officers. This issue made its way to the Florida Supreme Court, which found in a 6-0 decision that “Marsy’s Law guarantees no victim – police officer or others – the categorical right to withhold his or her name from disclosure.” While this decision is not binding in Ohio, could it be informative?
Very similar questions are in front of Ohio’s highest court in a case called State ex rel. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc. d/b/a The Columbus Dispatch v. The City of Columbus Police Department. At issue in this case is the Columbus Police Department denial of a Columbus Dispatch record request for body cam footage and other information following a deadly police shooting. The Court will consider arguments that the Columbus Police Department violated public records laws and whether police officers should be provided victim protections under Marsy’s Law. Oral arguments are taking place on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at the Supreme Court of Ohio. The argument is public and will be streamed live on the Ohio Channel at 9:00AM. Justices will hear from the parties as well as Attorney General Dave Yost, who will join the argument on behalf of the Columbus Police Department.
We believe that a transparent government can be an accountable government. This is critically important when we discuss the arm of the state with the authority to deprive us of liberty and life. We hope to see this same value reflected in the Court’s Decision.
