Ohio Sheriff Releases CHL Holders' Addresses - Newspaper Prints List

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
From CNSNews.com Direct link to article.

Release of Home Addresses Angers Concealed-Carry Licensees
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
June 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A Second Amendment group says the sheriff in Shelby County, Ohio, had no right to release the home addresses of 87 people licensed to carry concealed pistols.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has asked Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to investigate the release of the personal information to the Sidney (Ohio) Daily News, which published the home addresses in its June 8 edition.

"Release of this information is not merely a gross invasion of privacy; it might also be a violation of the Ohio concealed carry statute," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

"Under the law, only the name, county of residence and date of birth may be released by a sheriff to a bona fide journalist, and it requires a written request. There is no provision for releasing street addresses of licensees.

"Attorney General Petro should immediately launch a criminal investigation to determine if the law was violated, and then prosecute the violator," Gottlieb said in a press release.

According to CCRKBA, the "willful and deliberate" release of confidential information by a sheriff or any other public officer or employee is a fifth-degree felony that can bring a civil fine of $1,000

"The newspaper printed the home addresses of all 87 citizens, for any burglar or other criminal to read," Gottlieb said. "If any of these law-abiding gun owners is victimized in any way as a result of this outrageous release of personal information, the newspaper and Sheriff O'Leary should be held legally responsible."

CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron noted that Sheriff O'Leary opposed concealed carry. "But the debate is over, Waldron said. "It is now the law, and he needs to follow the law, to the letter.

"If he cannot do that, then perhaps he should turn in his badge and gun, and find some other line of work. He has betrayed the trust of every person whose address he released."
Click to expand...

It is bad enough that the law allows the release of the name, county of residence and birthdate of CHL holders and the subsequent publication of this information in newspapers, but to publish their addresses too is just irresponsible.

If you wish to email the publisher of the Sidney Daily News, Jeffrey Billiel, his contact information can be found here: http://www.sidneydailynews.com/ftp/index.htm.

If you wish to contact Sheriff O'Leary, his contact information can be found here: http://shelbycountysheriff.com/ContactUs.htm
 
Under the law, only the name, county of residence and date of birth may be released by a sheriff to a bona fide journalist
Click to expand...

Why would a journalist have any more access to information than the general public?
 
It was one of many compromises in that law, balancing the privacy concerns of the permitholders with the demands of the newsmedia to be able to review the issuance patterns to detect California-style corruption and cronyism.
 
That's just the way the law was written. I've heard that it was the price of getting Gov. Taft to sign the bill to legalize CCW. A trade of privacy for security...

Regular ol' citizens can't get the information, but for some reason, "bona fide journalists" are more equal and can request, receive and in many cases, publish the data.

...newsmedia to be able to review the issuance patterns to detect California-style corruption and cronyism
Click to expand...
Since Ohio is "shall issue" rather than "may-issue" like Cali, I always figured that it was more of a "double check" that criminals don't get permits. On days when I'm feeling more cynical though, I figure that it was more of an unofficial "harrassment" issue for antis disguised as reporters to jeopardize the privacy and safety of law abiding gun owners. :barf:
 
In the event that anything happens, or that anyone opts to push this issue, this CLEO or Elected Offical might well find themselves, "up to their ass in alligators", as the saying goes
 
Excellent info on the publisher. Now we need the same on the Editor, City Editor, and the reporter. Also, we need the same information on the Sheriff and his Deputies.
Come on, people, fair's fair. :cool:
 
Sorry, but I must wonder - - -

Look, I don't like the publishing of CH Licensees' names and home addresses. But the newspaper took a press release, or at any rate, information furnished by the sheriff and ran with it. The mere fact that Sheriff O'Leary, an outspoken opponent of the CHL law, furnoshed the information, makes it newsworthy. Again, I don't like it, but I have a lot less problem with the news guys writing and printing the story than with the shurf making the release.

Why doesn't someone who is so upset with the publisher go ahead and give home address and phone number for Sheriff Kevin O'Leary? Sure, some will say the sheriff is a law enforcement officer and should be able to keep his information secret. Well, I can see street cops and investigators and drug agents needing to keep some information from the public eye. I dunno. In over 35 years as a peace officer, I never had a non-pub number.

Most places, sheriff is an elected office, and elected officials should be accessible to their constituents, some think. that's the way the sheriff in MY county believes - - He's listed in the phone book, with address. And his business card has his home phone number, AND cell phone, AND pager numbers on it. It's been that way for well over 11 years, too. And I can say from personal knowledge, he does NOT have a back line at home.

Sauce for the goose, and for the gander?

Best,
Johnny
 
I agree Johnny. Sheriff's info didn't turn up in a quick search or I'd have put that up too. I can do a more in-depth search if you'd like.
 
I don't know if this was done for spite, to get attention, or "because we can" attitude. Some folks hide behind pews.

I recall it was not too long ago a some computer folks gave the satellite photo of residences, phone numbers and other personal information of some prominent politicians and posted on the 'Net in reply to invasion of privacey and 1A matters.

I would imagine , hypothetically of course, if some jounalists for instance had "some" personal info released - they would not appreciate it. Some folks are not being "responsible" with our rights.

Okay for "them" to post "yours". Maybe the interpretation of rights are not as important as ratings, votes, and somesuch to media folks. I still remember the journalists giving out real time "news" in the sandbox and not being cognizant of putting our troops in more danger.
 
I don't know if this was done for spite, to get attention, or "because we can" attitude. Some folks hide behind pews.

One of the editors who was planning to publish this information claimed that it was on the basis of his chafing under the creation of a distinction between a "bona fide" journalist and the general public - that if the journalists could have the information, so should the public.
 
Given that the sheriff is an elected offical, and that his department is listed under local government, his office phone number is no secret. I would think that his home address would not be any sort of secret either.

As for his attitude toward concealed carry, he, like every other citizen/person is entitled to his personal opinion, on ANY matter. He, like others however, is bound to obey the law, at least in theory, and should he be found in violation of statute, I would think that that would be actionable.

As to his release of personal data concerning concealed carry permit/license holders, sounds like he is carrying his "personal opinions" to damned far, and letting his personal opinion transgress on the performance of his sworn duty, as an elected offical, and law enforcement officer.

Personal opinion is one thing, his antics here are another thing entirely.
 
Board of Elctions should have the home address of the Sheriff. When you run for public office that information becomes a matter of public record. A protest outside the Sheriff's home on a regular basis would be nice.

Maybe a biography on these upstanding 4th estate members is in order. A listing of all their personal information seems to be in order. Where they live, how much they make, where their spouses work, and where the children go to school. They won't mind I am sure. Hey, it's not as if they mind putting personal information in their papers! We should let the public at large know just how wonderful these members of the 4th estate are. Remember Enquiring minds want to know!

Lawsuits all around seem in order at this point. Also a campaign calling all the advertisers in the paper seems to be in order. Putting people's lives in danger to score political points is one of the lowest behaviors I can imagine.
 
Letter sent, as follows:

"To Whom It May Concern:


I am writing in regard to the release of CHL holders’ personal information in your newspaper. This is a willful and blatant disregard for the privacy of law-abiding citizens, as per their confidentiality between the Sheriff’s office and their permits. Not only is this a breach of your journalistic integrity, but also conspiracy in a 5th degree felony. Why, in the name of all reason, would you publish the names of people who hold said permits? There is no rationale to violate their privacy by making it of public record that information which is confidential. As a journalist myself, I find this act reckless and irresponsible, and clearly in violation of Ohio state statute. This is clearly a poor judgment call on the part of the writer and news editor. While I am not a citizen of the state of Ohio, I find this to be a despicable act, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for putting your own political agenda ahead of your integrity as journalists.



------------------------------------------
James M. Mack, Jr.
jmm75@drexel.edu
regbarc@drexel.edu

Drexel University - Criminal Justice Program
Jefferson University - Germantown Hospital
The Triangle Newspaper - Distribution Manager/Columnist
------------------------------------------"


Hope this gets their attention.
 
Don't think a lawsuit is proper here. Any judgement would probably have to be paid by the county. All in the county would suffer.
 
Ultra vires

The county pays if the county defends the sheriff. The county's counsel could determine that the sheriff's acts were outside the scope of his office and, therefore, that the county is not obligated to defend the sheriff.

As there is a conflict of interest between the county's interests - obeying the law and not paying judgments in lawsuits filed against employees who abuse their office - and the sheriff's interests - not being found to have acted outside of his authority and using public office for a personal agenda - a lawsuit against the sheriff in his individual capacity might be in order.

Especially if all or most of the victims file as plaintiffs. LOTS of plaintiffs to share costs; LOTS of plaintiffs to pay if the sheriff loses.

Can you say "lawsuit"? Sure, you can! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top