ACLU Seeks Compensation in Sheriff’s Office Lawsuit
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is seeking compensation for time and resources spent on a lawsuit against the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office after the agency claimed it did not possess records the union requested.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is seeking compensation for time and resources spent on a lawsuit against the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office after the agency claimed it did not possess records the union requested.
In March, ACLU of Ohio Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer Jocelyn Rosnick requested multiple records from the sheriff’s office, including contracts and memorandums between the GCSO and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
While the sheriff’s office provided other records in the request, it declined to release any related to ICE, citing the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 8 CFR § 236.6, and claiming their release would violate federal regulations.
After a prolonged exchange — during which Rosnick emphasized the ACLU was only seeking contracts, not personal information of ICE detainees, and the GCSO maintained that releasing the records would violate federal law — the ACLU filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court in May seeking the records’ release.
In an affidavit later filed with the court, GCSO records clerk Diane Peterson said the sheriff’s office had not executed any contracts with the services listed in the ACLU request during the specified timeframe. She added that although a contract was executed with the U.S. Marshals Service just before that period, the GCSO does not possess a copy.
The sheriff’s office claimed the records the ACLU sought were federally prohibited from disclosure for six months and advised the union multiple times to file a public records request directly with ICE, Amy Gilbert, counsel for Rosnick, said in an Oct. 16 court filing.
“Their county prosecutor publicly stated his belief that (Rosnick) is entitled to the records she requested, but that their hands were tied because ICE was telling them otherwise,” said Gilbert. “Not once during this months’ long correspondence did (GCSO) indicate that they do not actually possess any records responsive to (ACLU’s) request.”
Had the sheriff’s office indicated it did not possess the records, court action would not have been necessary, Gilbert said.
“But because (the sheriff’s office) continued to assert unsustainable objections and failed to say anything at all in response to (ACLU’s) complaint, (the sheriff’s office) acted contrary to their statutory duty and (Rosnick) must be compensated for the time, resources and efforts expended to arrive at this result,” she said.
If a public record does not exist, the agency receiving the request is required to state so when denying it, Gilbert said.
“Here, had (GCSO) initially stated that no such records exist, (Rosnick) could have revised her request or submitted a new public records request. Instead, by hiding the ball and interposing a diversionary (and legally invalid) argument that (the sheriff’s office was) prohibited from disclosing such records, (it) sent (Rosnick) on a wild goose chase that is certainly
contrary to their obligations under Ohio’s Public Records Act,” Gilbert said.
She added it remains unclear whether the sheriff’s office possesses the records, as the affidavit does not confirm such documents do not exist — only that GCSO did not enter into a contract with ICE during a certain timeframe.
“But (Rosnick) asked for more than just these contracts with USMS, clarifying that her request sought ‘contracts/drafts of contracts and documents directly related to those contracts’ between respondents and ICE, (Department of Homeland Security) and USMS,” Gilbert said. “(The GCSO) failed to respond to (Rosnick’s) contention that the initial emails produced make explicit reference to agreements and modifications of agreements that were made during the relevant time frame. Curiously, (GCSO) have also failed to respond to their own county prosecutor’s statements affirming the existence of such records.”
If the sheriff’s office possesses the requested records, the court must compel it to produce them, Gilbert said, adding if the office does not, compensation may still be ordered.
Geauga County Sheriff Scott Hildenbrand declined to comment on the matter, citing pending litigation.
Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz did not respond to request for comment by press deadline.
