The Ohio Supreme Court ruled late last year that the officer who was shot was a victim under the state constitution’s Marsy’s Law Amendment, which provides certain protections to crime victims and their families. The classification allows the city to redact police officers’ names and other identifying information from public records requested by newspapers.
Marsy’s Law is a legal framework adopted across the United States to codify the rights of crime victims. The proposed amendment is named after 21-year-old California college student Marthalee “Marcy” Nicholas, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. After her funeral, Murthy’s family had an unexpected encounter with the accused, who had been released on bail without their knowledge. The experience inspired her brother to launch a national campaign to protect crime victims. This framework elevates victims’ rights to constitutional status and mandates timely notification, respectful treatment, and meaningful participation throughout the criminal process. In Ohio, voters in 2017 overwhelmingly approved Marsy’s Law, amending the state constitution and creating the Ohio Crime Victims Bill of Rights.
controversy in GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings vs. Columbus Police Department Founding of newspaper publishing company Gatehouse columbus contingentsought records related to police shootings. As stated in the high court opinion, the shooting occurred after officers responded to a call to assist in tracking down a robbery suspect. During the chase, the suspect, who was hiding, fired five shots at close range, hitting one officer. The wounded officer and other officers at the scene returned fire and shot and killed the gunman.
In responding to public records requests, the city redacted the officers’ names, faces and voices to identify information protected under victims’ privacy rights established by Ohio’s version of Marsy’s Law. Gatehouse filed its own lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking an order for the police department to release unredacted records about the shooting. In response, the city argued that the text of Marsy’s Law classifies victims as either the “person” against whom the crime was committed, or the person “directly and proximately harmed” by the crime.
The media outlet acknowledged that the plain language of the amendment appears to include police officers, but urged the court to avoid a purely literal interpretation of Marsy’s Law. In enacting the amendment, voters likely understood that it applied to private individuals who are victims of crime, not armed government officials, the outlet argued. Furthermore, it said that interpreting Marsy’s Law to protect the identity of police officers is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of inalienable rights of speech, press, petitions, assemblies, and open courts, which collectively create a right of public access to that information.
In determining whether public officials acting in their official capacity could invoke the proposed amendments’ victim privacy protections, the majority of courts concluded that the ordinary meaning of the word “person” is positive. The majority decided there was no ambiguity, so it declined to consider extratextual evidence cited by Gatehouse, such as the understanding of the voters who passed the amendment.
The court then addressed Gatehouse’s argument that the state constitution provides a separate right of access to public records that prevents the concealment of information about officers involved in use-of-force incidents. The majority said that insofar as the court recognized a constitutional right to public records, it did so based on the terms of a particular provision, not an “amorphous combination” of provisions. Even assuming that the Ohio Constitution contains a broad implied right of access to public records, the majority continued, media companies have not established that general structural principles can trump specific voter-enacted mandates such as Marsy’s Law.
By basing its analysis on general public meaning, the court rejected context-based limitations on law enforcement officers. Even if those limits may be consistent with voter expectations and long-standing norms of public accountability.
Free speech advocates have warned that expansive interpretations of victim rights provisions could limit transparency in use-of-force cases. If police officers can invoke victimization and suppress public records, journalists may be unable to report on police misconduct. Worse, critics say, the chilling effect could extend more broadly to protests and speech. Ohio’s decision places it among the first jurisdictions to give broad effects to constitutional provisions without creating a categorical exception for law enforcement officers.
The ruling contrasts with a 2023 Florida Supreme Court ruling that said the state’s Marsy Act privacy protections do not apply to the names of officers involved in fatal shootings. The court emphasized that the amendment protects only “information or records that can be used to locate or harass” crime victims, which is more narrowly worded than broader categories of identifying information. Information that merely narrows the scope of potential targets, such as the name of an officer, would not meet the proposed amendment’s withholding standard without further information.
Marsy’s Law has been the subject of lawsuits in other states, raising a number of questions. For example, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that a victim’s right to privacy is not absolute and that a defendant’s request for information about the victim to assist in his defense must be balanced against the defendant’s right to due process. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a challenge to invalidate a similar amendment, citing flaws in voting procedures.
Ainsley Johnson-Brown is a constitutional scholar and advocate specializing in judicial interpretation and the evolving role of state courts in protecting democracy.
Recommended citation: Ainslee Johnson-Brown, Ohio Supreme Court reaffirms text-first approach with ruling confirming Marsy’s Law includes police officersSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (February 18, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ohio-supreme-court-reaffirms-text-first-approach-decision-confirming
