By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch
COLUMBUS, Ohio — No one can recall a public-safety worker being injured or killed at home because someone with a grudge accessed public records to look up his or her address.
Yet, state lawmakers keep seeking to add to the list of public employees whose home addresses cannot be released to the public.
The home addresses of federal law-enforcement officers and probation officers would be shielded from release under separate bills pending in the Ohio House of Representatives.
Law-enforcement advocates argue that the law helps protect police and others, and their families, from at-home retaliation stemming from their on-the-job duties.
Robert Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association, said that, although he was not aware of anyone who had been physically harmed, deputies’ homes have been the targets of burglars hoping to find guns.
“I think it has been very valuable. When you have people who enforce the law ... it is very important to them to keep their addresses out of the public eye,” he said.
Since the movement toward protecting the privacy of public-safety workers began about six years ago, Ohio has compiled a growing list of those whose personal information will not be turned over to the public. The list includes police officers, parole officers, assistant prosecutors, prison employees, youth services workers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, children services employees and Bureau of Criminal Investigation agents.
A so-called “journalist exception” allows reporters -- but not the public -- to obtain the addresses for the employees, although the pending bill to protect the addresses of probation officers does not contain that exception.
State law also entitles those public employees to ask county auditors to replace their names in online public real-estate databases with their initials.
Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said enough is enough.
“This is part of the ever-growing laundry list. ... My personal view is that this is a solution in search of a problem,” he said.
“We generally do not favor special treatment for someone just because they happen to be associated with public safety. For example, why should a firefighter be entitled to more statutory secrecy than a teacher?”
However, FBI Special Agent Harry Trombitas, spokesman for the Columbus field office, said law-enforcement officers understandably have concerns about retaliation given their dealings with violent criminals.
“There are some concerns about information being out there. Many take steps to safeguard their family,” Trombitas said. “Me? I’m out there. To me, personally, it comes with the territory.”
State Rep. Michael Stinziano, a Democrat from Columbus, is one of the title sponsors of House Bill 103, which aims to protect the home addresses of federal law officers. He said the language passed the House unanimously last session but died in the Senate.
“There was concern that having the information public puts families at risk,” said Stinziano, who called the bill a “preventative measure.”
The bill also would permit victims of certain crimes and those who receive protection orders to list their home address as the secretary of state’s office in public records.
The office also could receive and forward the mail of those seeking to protect their addresses. The legislation is billed as protecting victims of domestic violence, stalking and sex crimes from their assailants. The bill is co-sponsored by 25 House members, mostly Democrats.
Copyright 2012 The Columbus Dispatch