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.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here to show, even from the idiotic perspective of law enforcement (LE), their intentions don’t actually work in the real world.
From LE perspective, I would argue the public safety interests of the statute were met by the person reporting the business name and place of business. Any customer of that business could look up the business if they were so inclined and see what was returned.
The state’s argument is not very persuasive, and in fact, counter-productive. If, now, the person doesn’t register under the place of business, but rather the customer’s location each day, that information won’t be available to the customer until, literally, that day the person shows up (if the website even updates that quickly). How does that help them? Are they going to check the registry EVERY SINGLE DAY to see if their lawnmower, janitor, carpet cleaner, window washer, landscaper, electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc. are SEX OFFENDERS (oh my!)??? This becomes even less useful if the registering individual can report the change after the fact (and in fact I would encourage all to do so if the statute permits).
If the customers aren’t going to bother with this insane daily ritual, I guarantee the general public are not going to do so before they patronize the place or business in question to see if (for example) the gardener out front is a PREDATOR (oh my!). This has to be the closest working definition of insanity I’ve seen. If a person told their shrink they check the registry before visiting anywhere outside their home for PREDATORS, I’m pretty sure a level-headed professional would diagnose them with some disorder and recommend therapy, or perhaps commitment.
What is so frustrating about this is the whole aspect of “legislative intent”. The state has a decent argument in that regard. Their attempt to show the state intended the law to require registrants to report each “location of emplyment” turns this into an argument that the law itself needs to be changed by legislative process. I feel as though this is where the justices questions were leaning when they were asking about the person being given the statutes at sentencing (as if any lay person should be expected to fully understand statutory writing).
I understand the registrant is simply asking for a definition of “employer” or “place of employment”, but this could be another one where a Supreme Court defers responsibility to legislatures for clarification. When this happens it can “pause” the entire registration section of statutes or pause that section in question of the statute until the legislature addresses the issue. And we all know legislation tends to er on the side of more restrictive wording.
I did find it interesting (and annoying) when the state used the term “burden” when describing the requirements of a person “burdened” by the registration statutes. Burden versus punishment. Frustrating.
They don’t want you working jobs where you are required to move about different locations.
They want PFR’s to have no way of supporting themselves, so they become homeless, end up with some kind of FTR violation and back in prison at the taxpayer’s expense. Make any of this make sense?
💖 thank you!!