State v. Haas

Trial Court No. 20CR000009

Scott A. Haselman, Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal filed by appellant, Shannon Haas, from the August 12, 2020 judgment of the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, denying her motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

2

{¶ 2} Haas sets forth one assignment of error:

[Haas]'s statements made to both her supervisor and a sheriffs deputy were compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment, pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey.

Background

{¶ 3} At all times relevant, Haas was a social worker at Fulton County Job and Family Services ("FCJFS"), employed as an ongoing worker responsible for Fulton County Children's Services ("FCCC") cases.

{¶ 4} On February 12, 2018, Haas signed a form entitled Confidentiality Agreement ("Agreement"). By signing the Agreement, Haas acknowledged that she read and understood FCJFS's procedure for confidentiality. The Agreement provided, inter alia, "[y]ou may not operate or permit operation of ODJFS [Ohio Department of Job and Family Services] or State Data Center equipment for personal business * * * [and] * * * [y]ou must report violation of confidentiality to their [sic] immediate leader."

{¶ 5} On May 7, 2019, Haas signed a form entitled Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Code of Responsibility ("Code"), representing that she had "read, underst[ood] and will comply with this ODJFS Code." The Code provided, inter alia:

Security and confidentiality are a matter of concern for all users of the * * * (ODJFS) information systems and all other persons who have access to ODJFS confidential data. Each person that is entrusted with an authorized

3

ID to access ODJFS systems, holds a position of trust relative to this information and must recognize the responsibilities entrusted to him/her in preserving the security and confidentiality of this information. * * * An authorized user's conduct either on or off [of] the job may threaten the security and confidentiality of this information. It is the responsibility of every user to know, understand and comply with the following:

2. I will not make or permit unauthorized uses of any information maintained by ODJFS, regardless of the medium in which it is kept.

3. I will only access information about recipients of ODJFS benefits or services, or about ODJFS employees, that is collected and maintained on ODJFS or state computer systems for those purposes authorized by ODJFS, and as directly related to my official job duties and work assignments for, and on behalf of, ODJFS * * *.

8. I will not violate rules and/or regulations concerning access and/or improperly use security entry cards or codes for controlled areas.

10. I will immediately report any violation of this code of responsibility to my supervisor and/or the OIS Access Control Unit.

4

In addition to applicable sanctions under federal and state regulations, violations of this policy will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may result in disciplinary action up to and including removal.

{¶ 6} In December 2019, Amy Metz-Simon, the Director of FCJFS, was contacted by the Director of Lucas County Children's Services ("LCCS"). Simon was advised Haas may have used the Job and Family Services computer system to access an allegation in an open case made against Haas and her family. Simon called Maurine Clymer, Haas's supervisor, and told Clymer to bring Haas to the conference room at FCCC for a meeting.

{¶ 7} Simon met with Haas and Clymer. Simon asked Haas if she had accessed her own children's services case through the State Automated Child Welfare Information System ("SACWIS" or "state system"). Haas denied doing so. Simon informed Haas that, according to Lucas County, Haas accessed the state system eight times. Haas then admitted she might have accessed the state system once.

{¶ 8} Clymer had not known Haas had an open investigation or that Haas had accessed the system. Clymer asked why Haas had not made her aware that there was an open investigation, and Haas responded she was afraid she would be fired and she knew the allegation was not true.

5

{¶ 9} Simon stated she would follow up with administration in order to determine how to proceed. Simon was told county breaches of the state system had to go through local law enforcement, so ultimately, the Fulton County Sheriffs Office was notified.

{¶ 10} Deputy Matt Smithmyer of the Fulton County Sheriffs Office called Haas at FCJFS, and explained to her that he was made aware of the situation where information was accessed from the state system. He told Haas that he would like her to come and talk to him. On January 6, 2020, Haas arrived at the sheriffs office and Deputy Smithmyer advised her she was not under arrest, she was free to leave and she did not have to answer any questions. Haas was interviewed for twenty-five to thirty minutes by the deputy.

{¶ 11} On January 14, 2020, Haas was indicted by the Fulton County Grand Jury on two counts of unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunication property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(B), fifth degree felonies. Thereafter, she pled not guilty.

{¶ 12} On June 8, 2020, Haas filed a motion to suppress statements. On July 27, 2020, the state filed a response. A hearing on the motion was held on August 5, 2020, and three witnesses were called to testify: Director Simon; Supervisor Clymer; and Deputy Smithmyer. On August 12, 2020, the trial court denied the motion to suppress.

{¶ 13} On August 20, 2020, Haas pled no contest to one count of unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunication property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(B), a fifth degree felony. The trial court accepted the plea and found Haas guilty. On

6

November 4, 2020, Haas was sentenced. Haas appealed the denial of her motion to suppress.

Motion to Suppress

{¶ 14} In Haas's motion, she sought to have the trial court suppress the statements she made to her employer and to law enforcement, as she claimed the statements were taken in violation of her rights under Garrity v. State of N.J., 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). She claimed her confessions were improperly secured in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as the confessions were not voluntary. In support, Haas cited to State v. Sess, 136 Ohio App.3d 689, 692, 737 N.E.2d 969 (1st Dist.1999), where the court stated:

As recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Garrity v. New Jersey, if a public employee is forced to make the Hobson's choice of answering questions that may incriminate him or of forfeiting his job, statements made pursuant to such questioning are not voluntary and cannot be used in a subsequent prosecution against the public employee.

{¶ 15} Haas argued she was told, when she met with and was questioned by Director Simon, that if she did not cooperate, she would be placed on administrative leave and criminal charges were likely. Haas asserted she was never advised of her Garrity rights. Haas maintained she was directed by FCJFS to meet with Deputy Smithmyer and discuss the matter, and the deputy questioned her upon Simon's request.

7

{¶ 16} Haas contended all of her statements to FCJFS should be suppressed and "all statements to law enforcement made upon direction by and with cooperation with her employer should be suppressed." Haas also cited to State v. Gideon, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-27, 2019-Ohio-2482, 130 N.E.3d 357, ¶ 23-27 and 30 ("Gideon I ").

Trial Court's Decision and Order

{¶ 17} In its August 12, 2020 decision and order, the trial court set forth the following findings and conclusions.

{¶ 18} Haas was a public employee with Job and Family Services who stood accused of illegally accessing secured files.

{¶ 19} At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Haas presented no witnesses and the state presented three witnesses. The witness testimony indicated a Lucas County Job and Family Services representative conducted an investigation involving Haas, and Haas provided information to Lucas County which she could not have known without inappropriately accessing files while at work. Lucas County alerted Director Simon, who was concerned Haas had violated protocol in accessing the files or someone may have accessed Haas's computer or password, which was a breach of security.

{¶ 20} Simon testified she met with Haas and Supervisor Clymer, and Haas admitted she accessed the file once. Simon testified she did not indicate at any time that Haas was required to answer questions or that Haas would lose her job or be disciplined. Simon did not know the proper procedure for an infractions of rules and indicated there

8

may be some disciplinary action, but the discussion was not made with any threat relating to Haas's cooperation

{¶ 21} Clymer testified she was not told why Haas needed to be in the office. Clymer did not indicate to Haas that Haas needed to talk about what happened or Hass would lose her job.

{¶ 22} Deputy Smithmyer testified he was informed of Haas's action and conducted at investigation. He requested that Haas come to his office to make a statement. Before she made a statement, the deputy told Haas she could leave at any time, and at no time did the deputy indicate that she would be subject to any discipline if she failed to cooperate with the investigation.

{¶ 23} During cross-examination of the witnesses, Haas introduced as exhibits the Agreement and the Code.

{¶ 24} The trial court set forth Haas's "arguments...