Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine during the State of the State Address, Jan. 31, 2023, in the House Chamber at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)
Responding to a media request to obtain the amount taxpayers paid for the governor’s security detail at 2022’s Super Bowl, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the information is not for public review.
The Cincinnati Enquirer requested the information through a public records request in February 2022, but were rebuffed by the Ohio Department of Public Safety and the governor’s office, which said releasing the information would compromise future security for Gov. Mike DeWine.
The request asked for “travel and expenses for troopers and/or staff attending the 2022 Super Bowl in Los Angeles, CA, with Gov. DeWine” and expenses for overtime pay, air travel, hotel and vehicle rental costs.
The denial led to a lawsuit, thus ending up in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court.
To the state’s highest court, the Enquirer’s attorneys argued expenses from the Super Bowl trip don’t contain “information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference or sabotage,” contradicting arguments by the state attorneys, who said the documents were “security records.”
Ohio’s Attorney General’s Office, who represents the governor in lawsuits, said records related to DeWine’s security detail “necessarily contain information (the Ohio State Highway Patrol) directly uses for protecting and maintaining the governor’s security against attack, interference or sabotage.”
That, according to the AG’s office, includes not only the number of officers, the timeline of their travel, and the security detail’s “patterns and protocols,” but also choice of hotel and rental car vendors.
Even though the information is from a trip that had already occurred, lawyers for the governor said the information “may inform how the governor travels on future out-of-state trips, and because this information exposes security protocols OSHP and the Governor’s (Executive Protection Unit) follow on a regular basis, it is precisely the sort of information a potential aggressor would necessarily exploit in launching an attack on the governor at a vulnerable moment.”
“DPS properly withheld the records because they are security records … and thus not ‘public records’ – to ensure the safety of Governor DeWine and that of the state employees who protect them,” state attorneys said in court documents.
The state’s highest court agreed with state attorneys in a 4-3 decision, ruling on Tuesday that the records are “exempt from disclosure when public office presents evidence showing that information in requested records is directly used for protecting and maintaining public office’s safety.”
The high court majority pointed to statements from a state Highway Patrol captain, a patrol staff lieutenant and a former Secret Service and Indiana State Police officer, all of whom said details like those requested by the Enquirer “can be used to plan an attack” and are considered “law enforcement sensitive.”
“And the evidence also reflects that the (Ohio Department of Public Safety) will rely on information contained in the security detail records for the Super Bowl trip in formulating future security plans for the governor’s office,” the majority wrote. “Accordingly, we hold that the department met its burden to show that the requested records are exempt from public disclosure as security records under (Ohio Revised Code).”
Justice Michael Donnelly disagreed with the majority opinion, spelling out the meaning of “security record” in Ohio law, and saying “the records sought in this case do not fit clearly and squarely into any those categories, as they must in order to be exempt from disclosure.”
“In this case, there is no evidence – or reason to believe – that the department uses its expense records for anything related to protecting or maintaining security; there is evidence only that such records could be misused by someone else,” Donnelly wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Melody Stewart and Justice Jennifer Brunner.
Justice Pat DeWine, the governor’s son, recused himself from the case, but did not give a reason as to why in a letter filed with the court. The OCJ reached out to the justice’s office asking for a reason, but had not received a response as of Tuesday afternoon.
It was reported that the governor and First Lady Fran DeWine took multiple unspecified family members to the Super Bowl with them, at their own expense.
