Comments on: OH: Watch Ohio Supreme Court Arguments in State v. Smith

By: James

James — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:53:03 +0000

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.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:30:19 +0000

In reply to Quiet too long. 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."

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:24:45 +0000

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.

By: Over there somewhere

Over there somewhere — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:03:13 +0000

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.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:45:34 +0000

Notice how the entire debate over what constitutes “place of work,” is completely unconnected to any considerations of public safety.

By: Quiet too long

Quiet too long — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:01:57 +0000

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.

By: Tereto

Tereto — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:01:56 +0000

The main office should be your employer address, after all, aren’t they the ones paying you? I mean heck, why not register the companies HR department, because they may be your payer, or the companies financial department, etc. The redundancy is unfathomable in this country, when it comes to registration requirements.

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:02:05 +0000

I just listened to the arguments. I agree the place of employment is where your office is. For example, what happens if one day you don’t go into the office and you work from home. Is your home considered a work address? Very interesting case here. I would say it is where your office is> That is your employer.

By: DVC

DVC — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:49:33 +0000

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.

By: DVH

DVH — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:06:34 +0000

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.