PETITION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY REVIEW
PETITION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY REVIEW
OF DENIAL OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Pursuant to ORS 192.415
To: Ryan Joslin, District Attorney
Date: April 28, 2026
From: Logan M. Isaac, HoSM
I. PETITIONER
Logan M. Isaac, an individual resident of Oregon, submits this petition pursuant to ORS 192.415 requesting that the Benton County District Attorney review Oregon State University's denial of access to certain public records and order their disclosure.
II. PUBLIC BODY RESPONDENT
Oregon State University (OSU)
Office of University Relations and Marketing — Public Records
416M Kerr Administration Building
Corvallis, OR 97331
Public Records Officer: Janet Harrison
III. THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
On April 2, 2026, Petitioner submitted a public records request to OSU (subsequently assigned reference number PRR 2026-216) requesting records related to an incident on April 1, 2026 involving OSU Department of Public Safety officers, including:
(a) All incident reports, police reports, and dispatch records related to OSU DPS Case No. 2025-00494;
(b) All body-worn camera footage recorded by OSU DPS officers during the April 1, 2026 incident;
(c) All audio recordings, including dispatch audio, related to the incident; and
(d) All database records associated with Case No. 2025-00494.
On April 13, 2026, Petitioner submitted a supplemental request expanding the scope to include:
(a) All communications between OSU DPS officers and staff at Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center on April 1, 2026;
(b) All records reflecting information provided to hospital staff regarding the basis for Petitioner's detention;
(c) All records reflecting any decision to deny Petitioner access to a chaplain during detention; and
(d) All records reflecting the identity of the officer who took possession of Petitioner's cell phone and any records of its disposition while in OSU DPS custody.
IV. OSU'S RESPONSE
OSU acknowledged the request on April 10, 2026, after Petitioner notified OSU's Office of General Counsel that the statutory acknowledgment deadline had passed without response. OSU set April 24, 2026 as its anticipated response date.
On or about April 27, 2026, OSU responded with:
A cost estimate of $332.05 for certain records (incident reports, dispatch audio, and database records), without itemizing which specific records the estimate covers or confirming whether the supplemental request items are included; and
A blanket denial of the body-worn camera footage on the grounds that it is exempt under ORS 192.345(40).
OSU's response did not identify any specific basis for applying the exemption to the particular footage at issue, did not conduct or document any public interest balancing as required by statute, and did not address several categories of records from the supplemental request.
V. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
A. The Bodycam Exemption Is Not Absolute and Does Not Apply Here
ORS 192.345(40) provides a qualified exemption for law enforcement body camera recordings. The exemption is not absolute. ORS 192.345(40)(b) requires disclosure when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in nondisclosure. OSU's blanket denial did not engage in or document any public interest balancing as required by statute.
The public interest in disclosure is substantial. The April 1, 2026 incident involved:
(a) Physical contact between OSU DPS officers and Petitioner during a detention;
(b) Administration of Miranda warnings, indicating OSU DPS officers treated the encounter as a custodial situation;
(c) Statements attributed to OSU DPS officers in Petitioner's permanent medical record at Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center that Petitioner disputes as materially inaccurate; and
(d) An ongoing dispute regarding the lawfulness of the underlying exclusion order under which Petitioner was detained.
These circumstances — officer use of physical force or restraint, a disputed custodial encounter, and conflicting official accounts entered into a third party's permanent records — are precisely the circumstances in which the public interest in body camera transparency is strongest. OSU has not sustained its burden of showing that the interest in nondisclosure outweighs the substantial public interest in accountability for law enforcement conduct.
B. OSU Bore the Burden of Justifying the Exemption and Did Not Meet It
Under ORS 192.311(4), the burden is on the public body to establish that an exemption applies. A blanket citation to a statute number, without analysis of how it applies to the specific records at issue, does not satisfy that burden. OSU's response identifies no facts, no balancing, and no reasoning — it simply names the statute and stops. That is legally insufficient.
C. The Fee Issue Is Also Disputed
Petitioner also disputes the $332.05 fee estimate and has requested itemization confirming which records are covered and whether the April 13, 2026 supplemental request is included. A requester who believes a fee is unreasonable may raise that issue in the same petition under ORS 192.324(6), and the Attorney General and the court have the same authority over fee disputes as over denial of inspection. Petitioner preserves this issue and requests the AG's review if the fee is not itemized and justified prior to the AG's ruling on this petition.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Petitioner respectfully requests that the District Attorney:
Review OSU's denial of the body-worn camera footage recorded during the April 1, 2026 incident and determine whether ORS 192.345(40) properly applies, or whether the public interest exception requires disclosure;
Order OSU to disclose the body-worn camera footage recorded by OSU DPS officers during the April 1, 2026 incident;
Order OSU to provide a complete itemized accounting of the $332.05 fee estimate, specifying each category of record included and confirming whether the supplemental request of April 13, 2026 is encompassed within that estimate or remains outstanding; and
Order OSU to respond fully to all outstanding categories of records identified in the supplemental request of April 13, 2026 that have not yet been addressed.
EXHIBITS
The following documents are attached in support of this petition:
Exhibit A — Petitioner's Public Records Request, PRR 2026-216 (April 2, 2026)
Exhibit B — OSU Acknowledgment from Janet Harrison (April 10, 2026)
Exhibit C — Petitioner's Supplemental Request (April 13, 2026)
Exhibit D — OSU Supplemental Acknowledgment (April 15, 2026)
Exhibit E — OSU Records Response (April 27, 2026)
Exhibit F — Petitioner's Exemption Contest Notice to OSU (April 27, 2026)
