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.
Once again this type of law is ambiguous and absurd. I have had Counties tell me that I must report if I enter their county for any work related reason. But if I do that I would have to report pretty much anywhere.
Do I have to report in a county that I buy gas for my truck since it is work related? Do I have to report work in a County if I go to a hardware store in that County even if the job is elsewhere since the materials I’m picking up are work related?
Or if I deliver a product to a customer and we meet each other halfway do I have to report the meeting site as a work address?
I report in person 10x per year on average even though I am only required to report 2x per year. I report more changes just to err on the side of caution in person than I am required. (Some of these changes can be reported online). I do this to protect myself from becoming a victim of their traps.
First and foremost, I would tell any registrant employed by a service company and are sent out to the employer’s customers’ different locations daily (or however often) should just grab the phone books of all areas the employer serves and register each and every address in them under the logic that he may be sent to any one of them at a moment’s notice and would otherwise be able to register any individual address unless the registration office remains open on weekends, holidays, and after normal business hours. Stupid law followed and idiotic legislative met.
Even though I agreed with the position before seeing the video, I thought Smith’s lawyer didn’t articulate his case very well. Fortunately, neither did the state. A couple of the justices asked questions that make me somewhat optimistic of an opinion in Smith’s favor by them, at least. But unfortunately, the stone silence of the majority of the justices indicates their minds were made up before this case hit the docket. And that almost never results in a registrant’s favor.
Florida takes a different route. If you read further into the 3 day rule, it says places you visit (for business or pleasure). I’m not an attorney, but from layman terms I am finding it hard to argue with that. But Ohio State said it is just a burden that pfr’s have to deal with, sounds like lifetime punishment to me. Maybe if it were just said in court ” I will lose at least 25% of my income to follow these laws” maybe a judge might listen.
Notice how the entire debate over what constitutes “place of work,” is completely unconnected to any considerations of public safety.
Your Honors, the State’s vague interpretation requires a general laborer to abandon hours of paid work, absorb the cost of transportation to a reporting facility, and then perform predictive, managerial reporting far above his pay grade — without compensation for any of these losses. This is the same compliance work that even the prosecutor struggled to articulate. If none of you would hire this man to track your company’s job‑site logistics, how can the State imprison him or anyone else for failing to perform those same managerial duties, without training and without pay? Our Constitution does not permit the State to impose unequal, uncompensated burdens on one class of citizens while exempting all others; to ask otherwise is a constitutional failure.
Disclaimer
This material is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. It reflects personal analysis and opinion on constitutional principles, statutory interpretation, and public policy. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney–client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal counsel. All references to cases, statutes, or court proceedings are used solely to illustrate issues of public concern. No statement herein alleges misconduct by any individual, agency, or court; all examples are hypothetical or generalized unless explicitly stated otherwise. Laws and legal restrictions apply equally to all persons, and any discussion of unequal burdens or constitutional implications is offered as protected commentary under the First Amendment.
You might want to add:
“Further, compliance with the state’s interpretation could result in loss of the registered job, further requiring yet another update within 3 days of loss of said job, and with absolutely no impact whatsoever on the legislative intent of increased public safety.”