For about nine years, starting in 1993, The X-Files was a popular TV series on the Fox network. Fans of the show know that FBI agent Fox Mulder was obsessed with uncovering what he believed was a cover-up regarding the truth about UFOs. The overarching premise of The X-Files was that the United States government was operating under a cloud of secrecy, with shady figures concocting vast conspiracies to keep all of us in the dark about what was really happening in the world.
While that makes for great TV, there's just really not much truth to it. To be sure, the government does keep some secrets, especially those that relate to national security -and perhaps space aliens -but beyond that, our government operates in the light of day.
And the same certainly goes for our state government here in Ohio, where the Public Records Act -the purpose of which is to expose government activity to public scrutiny -makes most government documents and files available to anyone who might want to see them.
There are exceptions to the Public Records Act, and from time to time, the press, in doing its job, asks to see documents the government has decided for one reason or another not to make public. On those occasions, it's up to us, the Supreme Court of Ohio, to review the situation and determine whether the records should be opened or remain sealed.
In Sept. 2001, Hamilton County Municipal Judge Ralph E. Winkler conducted a bench trial in which the defendant was acquitted of all charges. The day after the trial concluded, the defendant filed a motion to seal the official record of his case. He made the request under an Ohio law that allows a defendant who is found not guilty to apply to have the court records sealed. Nearly six weeks later, on Nov. 5, Winkler sealed the record.
About a month later The Cincinnati Enquirer asked Winkler to see all the records from the case. But because they had been sealed, he refused. The Enquirer asked the court of appeals to consider the request. It, in turn, asked Winkler to weigh the individual's privacy interest against the public's legitimate interest in accessing the records.
The appeals court didn't just pull this order out of thin air. The same law that allows defendants to ask for their records to be sealed also requires the court to make that assessment between the public and private interest. In response to the order, Winkler determined that the defendant's privacy interests outweighed the public's right of access. The ruling satisfied the court of appeals, which denied the newspaper access to the record. That's when the case came before us.
There is no dispute that court records fall within the broad definition of a public record. But there are exceptions to the general rule of openness. There was no attempt to hide anything here. There was a full public trial with widespread media attention. The court record remained open for nearly six weeks after the trial ended, and the press had ample opportunity to access and copy the trial record before it was sealed. That's why we voted seven-to-zero to affirm the court of appeals judgment to deny the Enquirer's request.
As Mulder always said, The truth is out there. It's just usually a lot more mundane than a vast conspiracy.
-Pfeifer is an Ohio Supreme Court justice.
17 Archives
Paul E. Pfeifer
