FAC Urges Ohio Supreme Court to Consider Real-World Employment Registration Challenges
Yesterday, we watched oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Smith, a case that highlights the often-impossible realities of registry compliance. The State’s position suggests that a person working for a cleaning company, landscaping service, construction crew, or similar would be required to report, in person at the sheriff’s office, every location where they are sent to work. We were deeply troubled by the arguments advanced and by the apparent disconnect between legal theory and the realities faced by people trying to maintain employment while complying with registration requirements.
In response, FAC has sent the following letter to the Ohio Supreme Court and members of the Ohio General Assembly. This is not a legal brief. Rather, it is an effort to explain the real-world consequences of interpretations that make lawful employment impossible and compliance more difficult, ultimately undermining the very public-safety goals these laws are intended to serve.
You can read the letter here: Ohio Supreme Court Letter_Redacted
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since no one properly analyzed his, here is the summary of the argument, made by me, a real person, ot AI, so that readers here can understand the ruling.
The actual ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-3472.pdf
Smith worked for a temp service, and he was sent to an assignment. He was assigned to the same location while woking at the tmp service, so the courts ruled that under Ohio law, because he was working at the same address (not the term service, but the assigned location) for weeks, he should have registered that address.
Smith wanted to argue that it could impact delivery service but the court ruled he was not challenging the law “on its face” but an “as-applied” (meaning just as it applies to him), so he was not allowed to argue that.
It is possible, of course, that a dlivery driver COULD be charged for FTR if some prosecutor wanted to do that, and that’s an argumentfor a different day. We won’t know until someone tries it. But in THIS instance, Smith had beenn assigned to work at the same location for longer than 3 days so it was easier for the state to claim registration of that location was required.
The ruling: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-3472.pdf
My take on it correct me if wrong?
Smith obtained work through the Center for Employment Opportunities and was placed with Immaculate Cleaning, a janitorial service. He had registered Immaculate Cleaning as his employer, but he had also been assigned to work at Camp Wise for several weeks. The court ruled that he needed to register that worksite’s address, too.
Smith challenged the law as unconstitutionally vague as applied to his circumstances. The court rejected that argument, finding that the law gave him sufficient notice that he needed to register the location where he physically performed his work.
Smith also raised concerns about pizza-delivery drivers, plumbers, and other people who work at changing locations. Because his challenge concerned how the law applied to him, the court declined to decide those other situations. It left those questions for another day.
One important detail: the court discussed a registration requirement based on working within a county for more than three days, or an aggregate of 14 or more days during a calendar year. That is different from saying every individual worksite automatically becomes reportable after three days.
The ruling does not settle how these requirements apply to delivery drivers or other mobile workers. In Smith’s case, however, his assignment at the same worksite for several weeks supported the court’s decision to uphold his failure-to-register conviction Grey area I see and to me did not want to pursue the other bigger aspect just got a ruling. Opinion there
You are correct in your analysis
I think it’s about time to just file for disability and sit at home since it’s getting to the point of not even being able to order food, get groceries, or even get fuel for our vehicles in fear that the person at the register being a minor and getting arrested for just trying to eat, provide for our families, or just drive somewhere. They say we are trying to hide, but we aren’t. We are trying to thrive in a society that wants us all dead, no matter what we did, didn’t do, or what we have overcome.
Unfortunately, SOME probation officers here in Florida already do this. Last Wednesday was an anniversary of sorts–nine years (successful) on PFR probation. got six to go. In that time, have seen a LOT of stuff. Early in the probation period, I was working for a company that cleaned offices. My first job out of prison.
As a hard worker, my boss wanted to know if I would be allowed to help her on some of her residential accounts. When I asked my then-probation officer, she her reply was this…
“sure, you can work houses. I just need to know the name, address, and phone number so i can call them and ask them if there are children in the home AND if they mind if a sex offender being insider their home”.
Well, ended up turning down the offer of more hours from my boss. She and I agreed that her clients would drop like flies if approached with a phone call like that.
So, already happening in Florida, just not well known. But, it also points out a larger problem. Probation officer “X” and Probation officer “Y” interpret and enforce the laws differently. Really disheartening for someone who tries to do what is right.
While a few of the questions from the bench are optimistic, the stone silence from the majority of the justices tells me their minds were made up before this case even hit the docket. Hope I’m wrong here.