The Supreme Court of Ohio today determined the Richland County sheriff improperly withheld information from a woman investigating missing money and property taken after her son’s death.

After the Court ordered Sheriff Steve Sheldon and his department to provide records for its inspection in April, the Court determined that three sets of records should be released to Andrea Mauk, with only Social Security numbers being redacted. In a per curiam opinion, the Court awarded Mauk $2,000 in statutory damages for the department’s delay in responding.

Mauk is attempting to learn who gave $1,500 in cash and an iPhone to a man identifying himself as the father of Mauk’s son, Damon, who died in a hospital following a June 2023 car accident.

Mauk sought a writ of mandamus from the Court, seeking to compel Sheriff Steve Sheldon and his office to release all records without redactions relating to her son’s death and what transpired at the hospital afterward. She also requested records from the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS). The Court in April denied most of Mauk’s demands, finding the law enforcement agencies complied with the public records law. However, the Court found three instances where the records law may have been violated.

While the justices unanimously agreed that Mauk is entitled to the records the Court inspected, along with awarding her court costs, the Court was divided on paying damages and attorney fees.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion, providing Mauk with damages and court costs. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only, stating he would award court costs only.

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy wrote that Mauk is also entitled to some attorney fees, finding the majority denied the fees based on precedent that is inapplicable to Mauk’s case. Chief Justice Kennedy stated she would award attorney fees related to the portion of the writ that was granted to Mauk and would allow her to submit a fee application to determine the appropriate amount. Justice Jennifer Brunner joined the chief justice’s opinion.

Belongings Missing After Car Accident
The Richland County Sheriff’s Office, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and the Mifflin Township Fire Department responded to a single-vehicle accident that killed Damon Mauk. Andrea Mauk alleged that a sheriff’s deputy found her son’s iPhone and a wallet with about $1,500 in cash in the vehicle, and the deputy took them to the hospital where Damon was being treated. At the hospital, the deputy allegedly gave the property to a man, who claimed to be Damon’s father. Mauk maintains that Damon’s father was largely absent from his son’s life and noted that neither she nor law enforcement notified Damon’s father of his son’s death.

Mauk has been trying to recover Damon’s property and confirm whether the property was given to Damon’s father. She also stated she has been trying to “lobby the sheriff’s office to tighten up its policies and ensure strangers cannot steal the property of accident victims.”

Mother Seeks Law Enforcement Records
From July to October 2023, Mauk requested multiple records from the sheriff’s office and ODPS. Early on, she asked the sheriff for all reports related to her son’s accident and an inventory of property recovered from his vehicle. She sought bodycam footage from the deputies who gave away her son’s property, along with copies of all policies related to notifying the victim’s next of kin following a fatal accident and the handling of recovered property.

The department provided most of the records but indicated there was no bodycam footage from the hospital where the deputy allegedly handed the property over to the man claiming to be Damon’s father. She followed up with additional record requests, including access to all requests the sheriff’s office received through three specific two-week time periods. The time periods covered dates following the accident when she made her initial public records requests.

The office provided redacted records for the time periods. Seven days later, Mauk sought a writ of mandamus from the Court, arguing she was entitled to mostly unredacted copies of the public record requests.

Mauk also requested several categories of records from ODPS, including photo and bodycam footage from the highway patrol. The department produced almost all the records she sought, except the bodycam footage. In April, the Court ruled that ODPS complied with Mauk’s request when it sent her the bodycam footage and audio in November 2023. The Court noted that Mauk also settled her claims against the Mifflin Township Fire Department.

Supreme Court Inspected Disputed Records
The Court conducted an in-camera inspection of the remaining disputed records. Mauk first filed a request for all public records requests made to the sheriff’s office over a two-week period in September 2023. She then filed two more requests on the same day, which also sought a copy of all public records requests made during parts of July and August 2023.

Sheldon redacted the Social Security numbers listed in the public records requests. He also cited exemptions in the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, to redact the names, addresses, and phone numbers of persons identified in the public records requests submitted. He also redacted notes made on the requests, citing two Court decisions allowing for the redaction of “personal notes.”

The Court noted the department cited R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(d), claiming some of the records requests were confidential law enforcement investigatory records (CLEIR), which can be exempt from disclosure.

The opinion stated that the records that Mauk requested to qualify as CLEIR records must satisfy two requirements: they must be confidential law-enforcement records, and their “release must create a high probability of disclosing” information that would endanger a crime victim’s life or physical safety.

The Court ruled the public records requests are not law-enforcement records.

“While the requests, in some cases, ask for law-enforcement records, the sheriff has not shown that the requests themselves are law-enforcement records,” the Court ruled.

The sheriff also failed to explain how the information in the requests would create a high probability of endangering a crime victim’s life or physical safety. The Court noted in many instances it is not apparent that the redacted names and addresses are those of crime victims.  

Sheldon cited a provision of the law that allows redaction of phone numbers for a victim or a witness listed in a law-enforcement record. Since the requested records were not law-enforcement records, the department had no authority to redact the numbers, the Court ruled.

The records also contain handwritten notes on them, which the Court determined were not submitted by those making record requests, but rather were added by the department as they processed the requests. The sheriff relied in part on Court decisions that found “personal notes” made by public officials are not public records.

The Court has ruled that “personal notes” are those made by a public official and kept for the official’s use or convenience. The notes on the records Mauk requested do not indicate they were kept for the note writer’s personal use or convenience, but were made on files kept by the public office and were accessible by employees in the sheriff’s department.

The Court ruled Mauk was entitled to the records request with all information unredacted except Social Security numbers. Because the delay in providing the records has exceeded 100 days, the Court found she is entitled to two awards of $1,000 in damages for each of the dates she submitted requests.

2023-1300. State ex. rel. Mauk v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5611.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.