To amend section 149.43 and to enact section 2901.51 of the Revised Code to allow a law enforcement officer to petition the court to remove the officer's name from a prosecutor's Brady-Giglio list.
Summary
HB975 would amend Ohio’s public records law and create a new court procedure for law enforcement officers seeking removal from a prosecutor’s Brady-Giglio list. The bill defines a Brady-Giglio list as a prosecutor-maintained list of officers with substantiated misconduct affecting credibility, requires notice to an officer when their name is added, and allows the officer to petition the court of common pleas in the county where the agency is located for removal. The court would hold a hearing, including an in-camera hearing if requested, and could order removal if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer should not be on the list.
The bill also adds evidence relating to whether an officer should be placed on a Brady-Giglio list to the list of records exempt from disclosure under Ohio’s Public Records Act. In effect, it would make that evidence confidential and subject to in-camera review, while leaving the rest of section 149.43’s public-records framework intact. The bill does not require prosecutors to maintain a Brady-Giglio list, but if they do, it imposes notice and judicial-review procedures around inclusion on the list.
Impact
HB975 would change Ohio Revised Code section 149.43 by adding a new public-records exemption for evidence relating to Brady-Giglio list placement, and it would add new section 2901.51 to establish a judicial process for officers to challenge their inclusion on such lists. The bill would affect prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and courts by creating notice requirements, a petition process, and an evidentiary hearing standard for removal decisions. It would also limit public access to certain materials used in Brady-Giglio determinations by making them confidential under the public records law.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from hearings or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears designed to provide procedural protections for law enforcement officers and to formalize how Brady-Giglio list decisions are reviewed. The overall tone of the bill is protective of officers’ reputational and employment interests while still preserving prosecutorial discretion to maintain such lists.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between prosecutorial discretion, public transparency, and officer due process. Supporters would likely emphasize notice, judicial review, and the ability to challenge inclusion on a Brady-Giglio list, while critics may argue the bill could interfere with prosecutors’ obligations to disclose credibility issues and could reduce transparency around police misconduct. Another likely issue is the bill’s confidentiality provision for evidence related to list placement, which may be viewed as limiting public access to information about officer credibility and disciplinary history.