OH: Watch Ohio Supreme Court Arguments in State v. Smith
FAC encourages everyone to watch the archive video of oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Smith, a case that highlights the often absurd realities of registration compliance. The State alleges that Mr. Smith violated the registration statute by failing to report his “place of employment.” The problem? He worked for a cleaning company that assigned employees to different job sites.
During the proceedings, the State acknowledges that employment changes must be reported in person at the sheriff’s office. Under the State’s theory, a registrant in Smith’s position would need to report to work, learn where the company was sending him that day, somehow leave the work assignment, travel to the sheriff’s office to register that temporary job location, and then return to work—all before performing a single hour of labor. They even suggest the work bus drive him to the Sheriff’s office. Like that’s going to happen!
Cases like this force courts to confront an important question: At what point does a registration requirement become an impossible obstacle to ordinary employment?
We are curious to hear how you think Oral Argument went. You can watch it from this link: https://ohiochannel.org/programs/supreme-court-of-ohio-case-no-2025-1215-state-v-smith
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see the argument from both sides, however, I think the evidence leans more towards Mr. Smith.
When I was working for a temp company, the deputy sheriff told me I did not need to register the temp company because they were not a permanent place of employment.
I certainly agree there is ambiguity in the employment statute and also, just because the prosecuting attorney said it’s in the law regardless of ambiguity that it makes it right.
If that kind of thinking were logical and concrete, we would have a lot more twisted, unconstitutional laws than what we already do.
Ambiguity in any statute is legal only until someone challenges it.
If a person registers their place of employment with the sheriff where they live and it is in the data base that I presume all departments share, then why would they have to keep registering every time they go into another county like in the jobs they mentioned? I feel like this is a little excessive especially since the SORN officer and the sherrif knew where this guy was and was able to find him without him registering in another county. They need to give everyone a reprieve on this and allow for everyone to get compliant without consequences cause it seems like even some of the sheriff departments dont even know how this works. I am even confused, so they have to report their employer, where they live, etc in the county in which they reside. But, if they go work in another county for more than 3 days they have to report to the sheriff in that county that they are working in that county? What if they are already registered in that county and once again why do we have to do this if it is in the data base and the sheriff departments are all hooked into the same data base system. Makes no sense other than more discriminatory practice against a group of people that society put a label on. Sorry for the rant, just frustrated in Ohio.
This is one of my favorite quotes and it relates to these types of court cases.
“Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave”
Basically we (Registrants) have to keep going, and going, and going to court, paying lawyers to allow us to live our lives. And all the traps that are set for us are in my opinion, done on purpose so we fail.
I am glad I no longer work so I do not have to deal with that crap. But if I did work, I would not in this instance, work remotely at different locations, just for that reason. And lastly, the registry seems to open a new can of worms on a daily basis. A basic registry years ago has blown up into a huge enterprise of traps, schemes and failures for us all, made to ensure we are on registration for life, or back behind bars.
When will the courts get tired of this mess and give us some relief, if even a morsal.
Has this case been decided & if so what was the decision??
Oral argument was held yesterday. We encourage members to watch.