9-1-1 bill would block right to know

COLUMBUS — A bill introduced by a Cleveland-area lawmaker should raise red flags among public records advocates.

On the one hand, it’s the kind of common sense legislation that will likely garner broad support in the Legislature. But on the other, it’s an erosion of public access that likely will lead to further records restrictions down the road.

Senate Bill 105, sponsored by Republican Sen. Tom Patton, would ban the public broadcast of audio recordings from 9-1-1 calls.

Patton makes two arguments in support of the legislation. “I do not see how broadcasting the actual voice of a traumatic experience such as murder, robbery, severe injury or even death can benefit society,” he told the Senate’s state and local government committee last week.

That’s makes sense. I know few people who think it’s appropriate, in our anything-goes Internet age, to broadcast recordings of real life people in real life danger.

Second, Patton said some people refrain from reporting criminal behavior because they’re afraid the crooks will recognize their voices on 9-1-1 recordings and hunt them down for “snitching.”

“In today’s violent world, the individuals who have attempted to do their duty have been victimized because their voices can be often detected,” he said.” Many times, the criminal element or their associates will seek out these people to obtain revenge for the act that may lead to their arrest.”

Limited access

Granted, the legislation would continue to designate the transcripts of 9-1-1 calls as public records. But reporters wanting to listen to the audio recordings would have to identify themselves fully before being allowed to do so.

And then, “In the event that the caller receives an act of retaliation, the police at least have a starting point for a follow-up investigation,” Patton said.

I don’t doubt the lawmaker’s sincerity. Patton is the son of a Cleveland police detective, and his son and four nephews are police officers, and he’s gotten an earful about people who don’t want to get involved.

But is banning the broadcast of 9-1-1 audio or forcing members of the public to identify themselves before accessing public records (and then holding them under immediate suspicion for doing so) the answer?

The Senate’s state and local government committee already has asked if the bill could be amended to ban the release of 9-1-1 callers’ names.

What’s next?

X Marc Kovac is The Vindicator’s Statehouse correspondent. E-mail him at mkovac@dixcom.com.