Posts Tagged ‘courts’

Ohio AG Petition for Clarification Denied by Ohio Supreme Court

August 17, 2010 Comments off

The State of Ohio, Appellee v. Bodyke et al, Appellants.

“1. On June 3, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case. State v. Bodyke,Ohio St.3d, 2010-Ohio-2424,N.E.2d.
2. Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General
have filed a joint motion for reconsideration and/or clarification.
3. The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied.”

Therefore, there is no longer any excuse for the failure of the Ohio Attorney General’s office to re-classify all affected former offenders. They have been dragging their feet for ten weeks now, refusing to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

See: UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of Ohio AG to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling

In just over 10 weeks, the Ohio AG office has removed only about 1000 registrants from their Sex Offender Registry. We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately 2300 individuals are slated to be removed. But keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well.

The AG office has refused to answer or return our calls. They have now blacklisted Constitutionalfights. And they have told us so, very directly and rudely. So we must rely on you, the readers, to help do the job of holding them accountable.

Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !

We are hearing from some (not many) readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
FAX 614-466-5087
E-fax 1 866 293 1021

Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:
Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL (614) 728-4127

We are also now actively seeking advice from any legal professionals who read these blogs, regarding potential legal action against the Ohio Attorney General Office for their failure to abide by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Please contact us at with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.

Messy Realities of Ohio’s Adoption of AWA Sex Offender Registration Rules

July 26, 2010 Comments off

Sentencing Law & Policy: The messy realities of Ohio’s adoption of AWA sex offender registration rules. Sex offender reclassifications will take months.

A helpful reader altered me to this local article which provides a window into just some of the many messy issues involved in Ohio’s on-going effort to get conform its sex offender registration rules to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act. The piece is headlined “Sex offender reclassifications will take months; One case shows how new ruling affects law on registration,” and here are some highlights:

George Anderson, a rapist designed a Tier III sex offender, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury for failing to verify his address. On Friday, July 16, the Ohio 2nd District Court of Appeals voided his conviction, citing the June 3 Ohio Supreme Court decision that eliminated reclassifications under the Adam Walsh Act….

These types of decisions will likely continue during the coming months, said Margie Slagle, staff attorney with the Ohio Justice and Policy Center. “Thousands and thousands of petitions were filed across the state,” Slagle said.

Twenty-eight counties were awaiting the Supreme court’s ruling before taking any action on challenges to Walsh. Nine, including Montgomery, issued county-wide stays, according to a brief filed by the Ohio Public Defender.

Anderson was originally classified a “sexually oriented offender,” the lowest designation under the state’s Megan’s Law. He was required to register his place of residence annually for 10 years. Under the Adam Walsh Act, which replaced Megan, he was reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest level — and required to report every 90 days for the rest of his life….

The high court’s ruling kept the Walsh system for new offenders, but ordered the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified to be returned to the old system and its requirements. “It’s going to make it confusing,” said Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey, who heads the Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association’s committee on sexual offender notification.

Under the old system, 77 percent of offenders were in the lowest category and 18 percent were in the highest as “sexual predators.” Under Walsh, the highest category, Tier III, contained 54 percent.

That tripled the workload for sheriff’s offices, with more offenders visiting four times a year instead of annually, Grey said. “That’s less time that we have a deputy out physically looking” to see if offenders live at the addresses they give, Grey said.

Attorney General Richard Cordray, whose office notified all affected offenders in 2008 that their designation had changed, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. He also has included a request for clarification concerning those offenders who did not have court hearings to determine classification, such as those convicted in other states. Ted Hart, a spokesman for Cordray’s office, said staff was manually going through all records to determine which defendants had court hearings.

“If they did have a hearing, they will be reclassified,” Hart said “If they did not, the cases will remain pending until we receive further clarification from the court.”

A Reader’s Suggestion

June 23, 2010 Comments off

I plan to write the Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court, each one individual letters, thanking them for their sage insight in making the June 3rd decision. I want to show them that my life is profoundly impacted in a positive way by their ruling, even if the purpose of the ruling was not directly intended to alleviate the retroactive application of an expansion of registration laws, but was solely intended to protect the Judicial Powers and the Constitutional principles that guaranty them. If you decide to do likewise, and write, I recommend a brief couple of sentences, and staying on the positive side with your comments.

I think this ruling is a small opportunity to remind the Justices that we are decent, grateful people, who merely want an opportunity to live our lives, and to let them know how profoundly their decision has improved the lives of many. Maybe these ideas will lay in their memory, and come to the fore when future sex offender legislation challenges come before them.

from Chris

….This is a good suggestion…

Chief Justice Eric Brown/ Justice Paul E. Pfeifer/Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton/ Justice Maureen O’Connor/ Justice Terrence O’Donnell/ Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger/ Justice Robert R. Cupp
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431

UPDATES, Friday June 18 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Attorney General

June 18, 2010 Comments off

We have received more information from the office of Ohio Assistant Attorney General, Justin Hykes (614-387-4257 ):

He is saying that the AG office is going through these registered sex offenders manually to determine if their registry entries are correct. Mr. Hykes believes this manual process will take 4 – 6 weeks to complete. ( This is an unacceptable time frame !)

They are waiting for the OH Supreme Court to rule on the clarification motion before reclassifying everyone at once. (This is a stalling tactic by the AG. By filing this motion for clarification, they have a flimsy excuse for not reclassifying everyone in a timely manner). He has “no idea” when the Supreme Court will rule on the Clarification Motion.

Mr. Hykes is advising offenders to comply with their registrations even if they should now be expired. He said the Sheriffs’ may arrest out of compliance offenders, leaving offenders to prove they have judicial orders before they could be released. The offender would be found not guilty of failure to register but not until after being arrested. (Then they can file a lawsuit for this false arrest.)

Email or Fax Your Judicial Order to the Ohio Attorney General:

In light of these discoveries, we suggest all readers who are now improperly classified sex offenders fax or email their “judicial order” papers to the Attorney General’s office. When you were convicted and sentenced, you should have had a separate judicial hearing where a judge determined your classification ( Sexually Oriented Offender, Habitual Offender, or Predator). If you can find this paper, you should fax or email it to the AG Office with “Attention: Justin Hykes” on the subject line.

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
FAX 614-466-5087 (main AG fax)
(This is the best Fax number we can find at this time. We do not know yet to what division this fax number goes to. Readers can try to call various numbers within the AG Department and ask for a fax number. If anyone can obtain or confirm a Fax number, please let us know here)

They are, of course, refusing to give out an appropriate Fax number. I did also get an e-Fax number which will go to Paula Armantrout at 866-721-2283 ( Managing Supervisor for Help Center), who “promised” to forward faxes to Justin Hykes. We shall see if that actually happens.

It is very disturbing that Mr. Hykes is stating that invalidated ex offenders are “required to register”, even though they are illegally classified by the Ohio Attorney General Office, which is failing to take action to remove these offenders from their registry list.

We have also been told by another AG Official that Sheriffs cannot arrest an ex offender who is now not legally required to register due to the June 3rd Supreme Court ruling. Despite the fact that this demonstrates how incompetent the Office of the AG is in giving out contradictory information, it opens a wide gate for lawsuits should any ex offender be arrested for not registering when they are no longer legally required to do so.

Widespread and massive lawsuits against the State should follow if anyone is arrested after the Supreme Court has ruled that they have been unconstitutionally classified and are no longer required to register.

To Public Defenders:

We know that some County and State Public Defenders read our blogs. If you have any information for us about this threat to arrest those who do not register when they are no longer required to register, please send us an email here. Please also let us know what type of legal recourse or protection is appropriate should any of these invalidated registrants be arrested falsely. We would like to post this information for our readers. Thank you.

Help be a watchdog:

Ohio Attorney General Files Motion for Clarification

June 15, 2010 Comments off

The Ohio Attorney General Filed yesterday a Motion for Reconsideration in the Ohio Supreme Court in response to the Bodyke vs, Ohio decision of June 3, 2010.


In accordance with Supreme Court Practice Rules 11.2 and 14.4, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Attorney General respectfully move this Court for clarification of its June 3; 2010 decision in State v. Bodyke, 2010 Ohio Lexis 1271, 2010-Ohio-2424.

Neither the State nor the Attorney General is asking the Court to reverse its holding that two provisions in the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (“the Walsh Act”), which required the Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been judicially classified under the old Megan’s Law, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Rather, the State and the Attorney General seek clarification of the Court’s remedy-specifically, whether the Court facially invalidated R.C. 2950.031 and R.C. 2950.032, and thereby struck the provisions entirely, or whether the Court only invalidated those provisions as applied to sex offenders who had been judicially classified under Megan’s Law.

The Attorney General’s Office is moving quickly (No, they are not) to update the State’s sex-offender registry (e-SORN) to comply with the Bodyke decision. For offenders who received Megan’s Law classifications by court order before the effective date of the Walsh Act, the Office will update e-SORN to reflect the original Megan’s Law classifications and notify these offenders of the reclassification (When? ). Absent clarification from this Court, however, the Attorney General does not know what classifications to input for a significant segment of sex offenders who did not receive a Megan’s Law classification by court order.

All parties-the State and the offenders themselves-will benefit from clarification. Such a pronouncement will ensure that the Attorney General, the county prosecutors, and the county sheriffs properly implement the Court’s directive; it will provide clear notice to individual offenders as to which framework-Megan’s Law or the Walsh Act-applies to them; and it will accord the Bodyke decision the finality this Court intended.

I am told by the Ohio Public Defender’s office that this request for clarification is with regard to those who went to prison before Megan’s Law was effective (so, before July 1, 1997) and were released after Senate Bill 10 went into effect (so, after July 1, 2007). Those people would never have been classified under Megan’s Law, so they didn’t have a prior judicial order classifying them under the Megan’s Law, risk-based system. Since the language in Bodyke talks about prior judicial orders, the AG’s office is asking the Court to clarify how the Bodyke decision should affect this group of people.

To understand this motion, know the following sub-groups discussed in this motion (pages 6-8):

Group A: “Offenders who were sentenced between July 1, 1997 and July 1, 2007. Bodyke unquestionably applies to this first class of offenders. These individuals received a Megan’s Law classification “by court order,” and had their status under Megan’s
Law “adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order.” Under Bodyke, this group of offenders may not be reclassified under the Walsh Act. Rather, their Megan’s Law classifications remain in effect.”

Group B: “Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released
before July 1, 2007. These individuals may not have received a formal order from a court specifying their Megan’s Law classification.”

Group C: “C. Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released after July 1, 2007. These are offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997 and therefore did not receive a Megan’s Law classification at the time of sentencing”

More on Bodyke vs Ohio

June 10, 2010 Comments off Ohio court: Give sex offenders old classifications.
The Briefcase: What Bodyke means.

In State v. Bodyke, by a 5-1 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday struck down the portion of the Adam Walsh Act allowing the attorney general to change the registrations of offenders convicted before the Act’s passage in 2007. The way that it arrived at that decision, and some parts of the opinion, proves most interesting.

Bodyke demonstrated the salient unfairness of the new law. Back in 1999, Bodyke had entered a no contest plea to a count of sexual battery. The judge gave him two years in prison and classified him as sexually oriented offender. That was the lowest classification of sex offenders under the current law, and required him to register with the county sheriff every year for ten years. After the AWA was passed in 2007, Bodyke got a letter from the Ohio Attorney General telling him that under the new act he’d been reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest classification — and would now be required to register every 90 days for life, and was subject to the notification provisions as well: everyone who resided within 1,000 feet of his residence would be told that a sex offender was living in their midst.

In my post about the oral argument in the case, I’d mentioned that the separation of powers issue was the one most troubling for some of the justices: you have the legislative branch giving the executive branch the power to modify orders made by the judicial branch. You needn’t have aced 12th grade civics to see the problems with that, and and after a dutiful exposition on the history and development of that Madisonian concept, the court strikes down the provisions of AWA allowing for reclassification of offenders. That’s reclassification: if a person wasn’t classified before, but is now subject to classification by the AWA, Bodyke doesn’t prevent that.

But this is where it gets interesting. The opinion devotes two pages to a discussion of stare decisis. That’s understandable in the context of the arguments raised in Bodyke: in addition to the separation of powers issue, Bodyke contended that the AWA violated ex post facto and retroactivity principles, and violated double jeopardy as well. Those arguments had been raised in challenges to previous changes in sex offender registration laws, and in each case the court had rejected them. But the discussion of stare decisis is less understandable in the context of the result here. Although one of the previous cases had raised a separation of powers argument, without going into detail, the argument in that case was not remotely close to the one Bodyke was making, and the court wouldn’t have had to overrule the earlier case in order to come up with the result it did in Bodyke.

Justice O’Donnell concurs in the separation of powers holding, but dissents from the majority’s discussion of stare decisis, finding it wholly unnecessay, and using a cute quote from then-judge, now US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, that “the cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” (One could make a fair showing that in Roberts’ career on the High Court, he has observed this principle mainly in the breach, but that’s another story.) But what’s more disturbing to O’Donnell than that the majority discusses stare decisis at all is what it says about it.

I’ve discussed before the problems with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Westfield v. Galatis, where the court laid down a three-part test for determining whether it should overrule a prior case. As I’ve pointed out, the test is so restrictive that since Galatis was handed down in 2003, the court hasn’t overruled a single case, going through all kinds of gyrations to avoid doing so. In Bodyke, the majority goes completely off the reservation, deciding that stare decisis is “inapplicable” to constitutional claims, and “is not controlling in cases presenting a constitutional question.” That’s too much for O’Donnell, who rightly notes that Galatis’ tri-partite test was derived in part from US Supreme Court decisions concerning the value of precedent in cases involving — you guessed it — constitutional questions.

And what’s involved here is more than just an abstract debate. The heart of the argument over sex offender laws is whether they’re “punitive” or “remedial.” When the court first confronted the issue in 1998 in State v. Cook, the court unanimously held that the provisions of Megan’s Law fell into the latter category. The court reached the same result ten years later in State v. Ferguson, but in that case, three members of the court concluded that the amendments to Megan’s Law had made the registration and notification requirements sufficiently onerous that they tipped over into “punitive” territory. And those provisions were much less Draconian than those contained in the AWA, discomfiting the justices even more, as was evident two weeks ago in the oral argument on another case involving that statute (discussed here).

So what’s all this mean? Let’s say the court is unshackled from the stare decisis effects of Cook and Ferguson, and thus is free to conclude that the AWA is indeed punitive. If sex offender registration and notification requirements are deemed punitive, you get into some due process issues. Remember, AWA classification is offense-base, as opposed to offender-based: you commit a certain crime, you get a certain classification. Couldn’t you argue that you’re entitled to a hearing, as you were under the old law, to determine whether your actual characteristics — your history, the facts of the offense, and so forth — showed you were really a threat to society? And doesn’t the separation of powers issue appear in this context? After all, punishment is the sole prerogative of the judicial branch.

So the immediate effect of Bodyke is that the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified under the AWA now have their previous classifications restored. But the language of the opinion portends the possibility that it may be raised to attack any future classifications as well.

Help be a watchdog:

UPDATES, Wednesday June 9 : Ohio Esorn and Public Defender

June 9, 2010 Comments off

UPDATE, Wednesday June 9, (4:00 pm): spoke with an Ohio County Public Defender, Steve Brown of the Ohio Attorney General’s office and Ted Hart (Ohio AG Esorn Deputy Director of Media Relations) today.

The unnamed Ohio County Public Defender had no new information about when we can expect to see compliance action from the Attorney General and Sheriff Departments, but did talk to us about the Ohio Supreme Court decision (Bodyke vs, Ohio). As we had expected, he agrees that the Supreme Court basically bypassed looking at any of the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy or other constitutional challenges in the Bodyke decision. He feels that this ‘Separation of Powers‘ issue really got under the skin of the Court, as was clear from watching the oral arguments. Courts do not like when Legislatures try to bypass their constitutional role. Therefore, these other constitutional arguments are still undecided at the Ohio Supreme Court level and could be brought back in other challenges.

As for the idea of pursuing some judicial order from the courts in order to force the hand of the local Sheriff Departments, he suggested that we wait 14-21 days before we pursue such course. As we all know, government is always slow and usually incompetent. This is why they have taken absolutely no action since last Thursday June 3rd. If we do not see any concrete action by the last week of June, he suggests that we contact our local Public Defender’s Offices and ask them about pursuing such legal action.

Steve Brown , of the Ohio Attorney General’s office still had “no time line” for when action will be taken by the A.G. office. This is the same story we got from Ted Hart, A.G.Deputy Director of Media Relations. I asked both why we cannot see at least some action being taken. Steve Brown’s office told me on Monday June 7th that he was in the process of sending out “Guidelines and FAQ’s to the county Sheriff Departments”, directing them as to what to do when invalidated registrants contact their offices.

I asked him today if they had been sent to Sheriff Departments. He said “no”.
I asked him when they would be sent. He replied that they “have no time line for anything”.

Shouldn’t the Ohio Attorney General’s office, at the very least, have a time line formulated a week after the Supreme Court ruling? Both of these two bureaucrats have told me repeatedly that letters will be sent to all those registrants who are affected by the ruling. When asked when these letters will be sent, neither would give us a date range. Steve Brown told me that his office is receiving many calls from citizens. Ted Hart said that his office was receiving very few calls from citizens about this re-classification process

Look …we all know that if the Supreme Court or Ohio Legislature had somehow instated some new registration requirement for sex offenders, they would miraculously be able to start the process immediately of updating their computer database and adding all the new registered sex offenders virtually overnight. But because they are not happy about this Court decision, they are acting like spoiled little children and dragging their feet on this, refusing to comply until forced to do so.

We spoke to two computer IT professionals (one of whom consults for the U.S. Federal Government) to ask them how long the process of updating such a database would take. Both gave the same answer: ” it can be done easily in an hour”.

This is why we all must call them daily to force them to take action and comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Anyone concerned about reforming sex offender laws must call, email or write to the Ohio Attorney General’ office daily until they agree to comply with the law.

Help be a watchdog:

Lesson: Separation of Powers

June 9, 2010 Comments off (Legal Information and Discussion For Students and Lay People):

Separation of Powers? Ohio Supreme Court Will Not Allow State Attorney General To Reclassify Sex Offenders Already Classified By Court Order.

In law school, I took a class involving issues of federalism and separation of powers. On my exam, the professor asked about constitutional ways one branch can infringe on the other branches even though it breaks the spirit of the Constitution. For example, what is to stop the President of the United States, as commander in chief, from marching the army on Congress? In any event, the judicial branch has little at its disposal to check the other branches. Granted, the judiciary can declare a law unconstitutional, but what if the other branches ignore the judiciary. What if the judiciary claims that the separation of powers prevents the other branches from infringing on the judiciary’s domain? That is what happened in the following case. Should the judiciary dictate to other branches that it is infringing on its area of power?

Read the opinion Ohio v. Bodyke

Like every state, Ohio passed a sex offender registration law in the wake of the death of Megan Kanka in New Jersey. Under that law, Ohio classified sex offenders into three different categories, and the offender’s requirements with respect to registration and related issue depends on the classification. Later, the Federal government, in order to unify sex offender registration law, required states, in order to receive federal funds to fight crime, to pass a uniform registration and classification law.

Ohio complied and passed its own Adam Walsh law. The law also had three different classifications of sex offenders. The requirements with respect to each classification differed from what the previous law required. Additionally, the law designated the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been classified after the adjudication under the previous law. Reclassified individuals, who are now subject to more stringent laws, sued and claimed that the reclassification violated the ex post facto clause of the Ohio Constitution. Instead of addressing the ex post facto argument (since courts have continuously upheld sex offender registration laws against ex post facto challenges), the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated those sections of the law reclassifying sex offenders because it violated principles of separation of powers.

Even though the Ohio Constitution does not specifically address the separation of powers, the doctrine is implicitly embedded in the framework of the Constitution. The essential principle underlying the policy of the division of powers of government into three departments is that powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments, and further that none of them ought to possess directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the others.

When the judiciary is going to assert that another branch is infringing on its power, it must do so sparingly. Still, the courts must guard against the other branches from reviewing judicial decisions or reopening final judgments. The Ohio law infringes this basic tenet of the separation of powers.

Individuals had already been classified as sex offenders through court actions. These classifications result in different registration requirements for these individuals. It also allows for how long one must register as a sex offender. The reclassification puts a greater burden on these individuals, and all contrary to a court order. As the Court notes:

The legislative attempt to reopen journalized final judgments imposing registration and community notification requirements on offenders so that new requirements may be imposed suffers the same constitutional infirmity. It does not matter that the legislature has the authority to enact or amend laws requiring sex offenders to register or that the current Sex Offender Act does not order the courts to reopen final judgments. The fact remains that the General Assembly cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered.

Instead of declaring the entire Adam Walsh law unconstitutional, the Court just severed those provisions giving the Attorney General the power to reclassify sex offenders from the bill and invalidate them as unconstitutional. Thus, sex offenders classified under the old law will be classified as such.

Action Item: We Need Watchdogs in Ohio (and from outside Ohio)

June 8, 2010 Comments off

We have seen absolutely no action on the part of the Ohio Attorney General or Ohio County Sheriff Departments in complying with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling last week, which invalidated the reclassification of Senate Bill 10 (Ohio’s sex offender law /Adam Walsh Act law). Each day which passes, allows the illegal enforcement of a law which has been invalidated and ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. Make no mistake: the state’s failure, or refusal, to comply with this ruling is indeed, an illegal act.

Months ago, we saw the Kentucky Attorney General refuse to comply by the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling which struck down the retroactive residency restrictions in that state. He dragged his feet as long as possible before being denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For this reason, we need all readers to be WatchDogs. Wherever you reside, if you are concerned about unconstitutional sex offender laws in this country we need you to call and write the following agencies daily until they agree to abide by the law. We have been doing this but they are showing anger against us now. So we need everyone’s help.

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
FAX 614-466-5087

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018

Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL (614) 728-4127

Contact list for Ohio County Sheriff Departments (Ask to speak with the SORN or Sex Offender Office):

Sheriff name Phone number Web site eSORN Site County
Kermit Howard (937) 544-2314 view view Adams
Samuel A. Crish (419) 993-1435 view view Allen
Estel Risner (419) 289-3911 view view Ashland
William Johnson (440) 576-3540 view view Ashtabula
Patrick Kelly (740) 593-6633 view view Athens
Allen F. Solomon (419) 739-6565 view view Auglaize
Fred Thompson (740) 695-7933 view view Belmont
Dwayne Wenninger (937) 378-4435 view view Brown
Richard K. Jones (513) 785-1246 view view Butler
Dale R. Williams (330) 627-2141 view view Carroll
Brent A. Emmons (937) 652-1311 view view Champaign
Gene Kelly (937) 328-2537 view view Clark
A.J. Tim Rodenberg (513) 732-7500 view view Clermont
Ralph D. Fizer Jr. (937) 382-1611 view view Clinton
Raymond L. Stone (330) 424-4065 view view Columbiana
Timothy Rogers (740) 622-2411 view view Coshocton
Ronny J. Shawber (419) 562-7906 view view Crawford
Gerald T. McFaul (216) 443-5567 view view Cuyahoga
Toby L. Spencer (937) 547-7337 view view Darke
David J. Westrick (419) 784-1155 view view Defiance
Walter L. Davis III (740) 833-2845 view view Delaware
Terry M. Lyons (419) 625-7951 view view Erie
David Phalen (740) 681-7239 view view Fairfield
Vernon Stanforth (740) 333-3504 view view Fayette
James Karnes (614) 462-3351 view view Franklin
Darell Merillat (419) 335-4010 view view Fulton
Joseph R Browning (740) 446-4614 view view Gallia
Daniel C McClelland (440) 279-2009 view view Geauga
Gene Fischer (937) 562-4820 view view Greene
Michael R. McCauley (740) 439-4455 view view Guernsey
Simon L. Leis, Jr. (513) 946-6230 view view Hamilton
Michael E. Heldman (419) 424-7235 view view Hancock
Keith Everhart (419) 673-1268 view view Hardin
Mark Miller (740) 942-2197 view view Harrison
John J. Nye (419) 592-8010 view view Henry
Ronald D Ward (937) 840-6240 view view Highland
Lanny E. North (740) 385-2131 view view Hocking
Timothy W. Zimmerly (330) 674-1936 view view Holmes
Dane Howard (419) 668-1996 view Huron
John Shasteen (740) 286-6464 view view Jackson
Fred J. Abdalla (740) 283-8600 view view Jefferson
David Barber (740) 393-6800 view view Knox
Daniel A. Dunlap (440) 350-5676 view view Lake
Timothy Sexton (740) 532-3525 view view Lawrence
Randy Thorp (740) 670-5525 view view Licking
Andrew J Smith (937) 599-3247 view view Logan
Phil Stammitti (440) 329-3709 view view Lorain
James A Telb (419) 213-4269 view view Lucas
James P. Sabin (740) 852-1332 view view Madison
Randall Wellington (330) 480-5055 view view Mahoning
Tim Bailey (740) 382-8244 view view Marion
Neil Hassinger (330) 725-9116 view view Medina
Robert E. Beegle (740) 992-3371 view Meigs
Jeff Grey (419) 586-5770 view view Mercer
Charles Cox (937) 440-6085 view view Miami
Charles R. Black (740) 472-1612 view view Monroe
Phil Plummer (937) 224-3995 view view Montgomery
Thomas Jenkins Sr. (740) 962-4044 view Morgan
Steven Brenneman (419) 947-1151 view view Morrow
Matthew J Lutz (740) 452-3637 view view Muskingum
Stephen S Hannum (740) 732-5631 view view Noble
Robert L. Bratton (419) 734-6826 view view Ottawa
David Harrow (419) 399-3791 view view Paulding
William Randall Barker (740) 342-4123 view view Perry
Dwight E. Radcliff (800) 472-5245 view view Pickaway
RICHARD N HENDERSON (740) 947-2111 view view Pike
David W. Doak (330) 297-3890 view view Portage
Michael Simpson (937) 456-6314 view view Preble
James Beutler (419) 523-3208 view view Putnam
J. Steve Sheldon (419) 774-3550 view view Richland
George W. Lavender (740) 773-1186 view view Ross
David Gangwer (419) 332-2613 view view Sandusky
Marty V. Donini (740) 355-8261 view view Scioto
Thomas Steyer (419) 447-3456 view view Seneca
Doug Schlagetter (937) 494-2119 view view Shelby
Timothy Swanson (330) 430-3800 view view Stark
Drew Alexander (330) 643-2164 view view Summit
Thomas L. Altiere (330) 675-2440 view view Trumbull
Walter R. Wilson (330) 308-6637 view view Tuscarawas
Rocky Nelson (937) 645-4131 view view Union
Stan D. Owens (419) 238-3866 view view Van Wert
David N. Hickey (740) 596-5242 view Vinton
Larry Sims (513) 695-1522 view view Warren
Larry R. Mincks SR. (740) 376-7070 view view Washington
Thomas G. Maurer (330) 287-5749 view view Wayne
Kevin A. Beck (419) 636-3151 view view Williams
Mark Wasylyshyn (419) 354-1412 view view Wood
Michael R. Hetzel (419) 294-2362 view Wyandot

From Three Back to Five : Ohio Sex Offender Re- Re- Classification

June 7, 2010 Comments off From Three Back to Five: Tens of thousands of sex offenders in the state of Ohio will be reclassified…as the result of a state supreme court ruling.

Right now, Ohio has three different categories in which registered sex offenders are placed. It used to have five. Now, with a ruling by the state high court on the constitutionality of a tough new law approved a few years ago, the classification list will go back to five.

“We have, I believe, three individuals in our county, who went from one category under the five (tier system) to the three (tier system), and they were due to drop off of being required to register,” says one Ohio county Sheriff Larry Mincks. “Now, we have those three individuals who are going to go back to the old category, and they’re not going to be required to register at all.”

What may be more of a problem is the administration of these changes. When the law was approved, there was no money allocated for its oversight by local law enforcement officials. And the offenders must be notified of the changes.

“The attorney general will send out letters to all these people,” Sheriff Mincks says. “If these letters came back as undeliverable, or are no longer at that address, then, it is mandated by the sheriff’s office to find where those people are, and to notify them of that change in their registrations.”

The court ruling does not affect any offenders who were convicted after the law went into effect at the beginning of 2008.

More challenges to Ohio’s Sex Offender laws are still under review by the Ohio Supreme Court.