Does Marsy’s Law apply to the Cincinnati police officers who shot and killed an armed man?

The Cincinnati Police Department has declined to release the names of the four officers who fired their weapons in the fatal shooting that killed Juan Mack near the Music Hall last week.

Citing Marsy’s Law, the department only released information about which precinct the officers worked in and how long they had been with the department. They assigned officers numbers rather than using their last names.

For at least a decade, Cincinnati police have released the names of officers involved in fatal shootings within a day of the incident.

From the editor: Marsy’s Law Was Not Intended to Protect Police Officers’ Identities | Opinion

Ohio voters approved Marsy’s Law as a constitutional amendment in 2017. It included a series of measures aimed at protecting crime victims. It took the Legislature years to turn the amendment into enforceable laws, which include mandatory notice of hearings, the status of defendants and the right to speak at court hearings.

Under Marsy’s Law, crime victims can choose not to have their names released by filling out a form provided by police or prosecutors. As a result, several police departments across the state have refused to release the names of officers involved in critical incidents, arguing that the officers are victims.

Cincinnati has been releasing the names of officers after shootings for decades.

Releasing the names of officers who use force against citizens is one of the accountability measures included in the Cincinnati Cooperative Agreement. The landmark police reform agreement between the city, residents and police was reached after the 2001 police shooting of Timothy Thomas and the subsequent civil unrest. The Justice Department came to Cincinnati at the city’s request to review the Cincinnati Police Department and helped craft the agreement.

The city attorney’s office said Wednesday it was reviewing The Enquirer’s request.

Law enforcement sued in Columbus, Akron

The suppression of officers’ names has been challenged twice in the Columbus area. Both cases are still pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Blendon Township Police Department has declined to release the names of the two officers involved in the fatal shooting of 21-year-old Ta’Kiya Young. Young was confronted by officers after reporting a shoplifting incident and refused to turn off her engine. Body camera footage shows an officer standing in front of her car as it was moving. The officer then shot her.

In that case, the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center filed a complaint on behalf of Young’s family. The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the police department to release the names to the court but did not order them to be made public.

More: Marsy’s Law was supposed to protect victims of crime. Now it hides the identity of police officers who use force.

The Enquirer’s sister paper, The Columbus Dispatch, has sued the newspaper, demanding it release the names of officers involved in numerous fatal shootings and other use-of-force incidents.

In one case, the Columbus Police Department refused to release the identities of eight officers involved in a July 6 shooting on Interstate 70 that left a bank robbery suspect dead and one officer wounded.

The Akron Beacon Journal, another sister organization to The Enquirer, also sued the Akron police over the same issue.

Florida court rules Marsy’s Law fails to protect police and victims’ anonymity

USA TODAY and ProPublica examined the law in 2020 and found dozens of examples of the law being used in Florida to protect the names of police officers. As of October 2023, 17 states had adopted Marsy’s Law.

But last November, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Marsy’s Law does not guarantee anonymity to police officers or any victim. The Florida law gives victims the right to “prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim (or his or her family).”

A Florida court ruled that this does not include the victim’s identity.

The Ohio Constitution calls for victims to be treated “with respect for their safety, dignity, and privacy” and for them to be provided “reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on his behalf.”

Following the passage of this amendment, in 2023, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives passed bills amending the state’s victim information privacy code to require names to be redacted from all case documents.