By Amily A. ImbrognoSince the Eighth District held that Ohio’s statutory protection for crime victim and witness telephone numbers from public release was unenforceable, law-enforcement agencies and other public offices have been left in an awkward position. The statute said the information was exempt from disclosure, but the Eighth District had held that the exemption could not be enforced.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has now resolved the uncertainty.
On August 27, 2026, the court unanimously reversed the Eighth District in Allied Health & Chiropractic, L.L.C. v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3308. So, the current version of R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(mm) remains in effect and public offices may rely on it in responding to requests for law-enforcement records.
What Created the Uncertainty
R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(mm) excludes from production in response to a public records request telephone numbers of crime victims and witnesses when those numbers appear in law-enforcement records or reports. A related provision, R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(oo), applies to telephone numbers of parties to motor-vehicle accidents and generally makes those numbers public after 30 days.
The General Assembly originally enacted the victim and witness telephone-number provision as part of Ohio’s 2020-2021 biennial budget bill. Several healthcare providers challenged the provision, arguing that including it in the budget bill violated the Ohio Constitution’s one-subject rule. The trial court agreed, and the Eighth District affirmed.
That left law-enforcement agencies, municipalities, counties, townships, and other public offices with a problem: the statute remained on the books, but the Eighth District had held that it was unenforceable. Public offices responding to requests for police reports and other law-enforcement records therefore had to decide whether to continue applying the exemption or treat the telephone numbers as public.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed.
Underlying the analysis was the fact that even if the 2020-2021 budget bill was unconstitutional, the General Assembly had later amended the statute through separate legislation.
The Supreme Court explained that, when the General Assembly amends a statutory section, the prior version is repealed and the amended version becomes the operative law. The validity of the current statute therefore depends on the legality of the legislation that enacted the amended version, not on the legality of the budget bill that originally created the exemption.
Because the challengers had not argued that the later legislation itself violated the one-subject rule, the alleged problem with the original budget bill did not invalidate the current version of the statute.
What This Means for Public Offices
For public offices responding to public-records requests, R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(mm) remains an operative exemption, and public offices may continue to redact telephone numbers of crime victims and witnesses contained in law-enforcement records.
Public offices should continue to distinguish those telephone numbers from numbers belonging to parties to motor-vehicle accidents, which are governed by the separate 30-day provision in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(oo). They should note that the fact that a document contains a victim or witness phone number likely does not render the entire document exempt from disclosure – if the document itself is a public record responsive to a request, the responding office should produce the document after redacting these numbers and any other exempted portions.
The Supreme Court did not decide every constitutional issue that could be raised concerning these provisions, and additional issues remain on remand. But the decision removes the uncertainty created by the Eighth District’s ruling and gives public offices a clear basis to continue applying the exemption.
Case: Allied Health & Chiropractic, L.L.C. v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3308
Decision Date: August 27, 2026
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio