Legal Opinion: Marcy's Law
In the continuing saga of Hilton v Knapp Public Records are the line in the sand
Legal Opinion: Why Aaron C. Knapp—Not Tia Hilton—Is the “Victim” Under Ohio Law
I. Introduction
This opinion explains, as a matter of Ohio law, why Aaron C. Knapp is the true victim in the dispute over the “Hilton communications” and why Ms. Hilton lacks standing to invoke Marsy’s Law. It addresses:
The statutory definition of “victim” under Marsy’s Law;
The absence of any prosecutable offense against Hilton;
Ohio’s false-reporting statutes; and
The Public Records Act’s presumption of disclosure.
II. Marsy’s Law Requires a Prosecuted Offense
Marsy’s Law (Ohio Const. Art. I, § 10a; codified at R.C. 2930.07) grants privacy rights only to persons “against whom an offense is committed or attempted,” i.e., victims in prosecuted criminal cases.
Statutory Text: R.C. 2930.01(A)(1)(f) defines a “victim” as “a person against whom an offense is committed or attempted.”
Redaction Trigger: Under R.C. 2930.07(D)(1), “case documents” may be redacted only when a qualifying victim requests it in a pending criminal case.
Because no charges were filed against Ms. Hilton (Sheriff’s Report #2025-10686, May 2025), there is no “case” under Ohio law. Ohio courts uniformly hold that Marsy’s Law protections never attach absent an actual criminal prosecution.
III. No Criminal Case, No Marsy’s Law Protection
Ms. Hilton’s allegations, though serious, never evolved into a charging document, plea, or trial. Under Ohio Supreme Court authority (e.g., State ex rel. Young v. Blendon Township, Sixth Dist. Case No. 23CA010598, slip op. Feb. 2024), the absence of a formal charge precludes any Marsy’s Law claim.
Case Law: In Young, officers injured in an uncharged shooting could not invoke Marsy’s Law; the Court ordered disclosure of their identities.
Policy Rationale: Marsy’s Law protects victims during criminal proceedings—interviewing witnesses, trial testimony, sentencing—not from public records requests in uncharged matters.
IV. Knapp as the Victim of False Reporting
When Ms. Hilton knowingly provided false statements to law enforcement, she committed a crime under R.C. 2921.31 (Tampering with Records) and/or R.C. 2913.47 (Making False Alarms).
False Statements: R.C. 2921.31(A)(1) prohibits knowingly making a false statement or representation to public officials, with the intent to mislead.
Actual Injury: These false allegations triggered an official “investigation,” invaded Knapp’s privacy, and caused reputational harm—hallmarks of a crime’s effect on a “victim.”
Had Ms. Hilton been charged under these statutes, Knapp would qualify as the “victim” under Marsy’s Law (R.C. 2930.01(A)(1)(f)) and could seek privacy protections for his personal information.
V. Public Records Act Presumes Disclosure
Even putting Marsy’s Law aside, the Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) mandates prompt disclosure of public records unless a narrow exemption applies.
Presumption of Openness: R.C. 149.43(A)(1) declares almost all records “public.”
Exemption Burden: Under R.C. 149.43(D)(1), any exemption—Marsy’s Law or CLEIRs (R.C. 149.011(G))—must be strictly construed. Vague, blanket denials fail the statutory requirement for a “written explanation” with legal citation (R.C. 149.43(B)(3)).
Because no ongoing criminal case exists, the Sheriff’s Office cannot lawfully withhold the Hilton-related communications under either Marsy’s Law or investigatory privilege.
VI. Conclusion
Under Ohio law, Knapp—not Hilton—is the victim of a false-reporting offense. Marsy’s Law applies only to prosecuted victims, and no charges were filed against Hilton. Ohio’s false-statement statutes recognize Knapp as the injured party. Moreover, the Public Records Act’s strong presumption of openness precludes any broad exemption in the absence of a valid case or investigatory need.
Therefore, Ms. Hilton lacks statutory standing to block the release or inspection of the communications, and Mr. Knapp’s rights under R.C. 149.43 and Marsy’s Law (were charges ever filed against Hilton) are paramount.
Key Authorities
Ohio Constitution Art. I, § 10a (Marsy’s Law)
Ohio Rev. Code § 2930.01(A)(1)(f); § 2930.07(D)
Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(A)(1), (B)(1)–(3), (D)(1)
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.31(A)(1) (Tampering with Records)
Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.47 (Making False Alarms)
State ex rel. Young v. Blendon Township, Sixth Dist. Case No. 23CA010598 (Feb. 2024)