Archive
Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law
Court: Sex offender law not retroactive
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 13 (UPI) — A law on registration and community notification for released sex offenders cannot be applied retroactively, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday.
The justices ruled 5-2 the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Law can only be applied to offenders who committed their crimes after it became effective, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The court reversed a decision by a state appeals court.
“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Justice Paul Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.'”
Justice Terrence O’Donnell in the minority opinion said the court has said in previous rulings that requiring sex offenders to register and providing community notification in some cases are civil sanctions, not criminal penalties.
The Ohio Supreme Court, in a ruling published today, has declared that imposing “enhanced” sex offender registration and community notification requirements on previously-convicted sex offenders, as required by the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) which was contained in 2007’s Senate Bill (SB) 10 is a violation of the Ohio Constitution.
“When the General Assembly adopted the AWA by enacting 2007 S.B. 10,” stated a Ohio Supreme Court press release, “it included statutory language requiring that, regardless of the date on which a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply a new three-tiered AWA offender classification scheme and must include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the prior, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.”
The decision was based on Article II, Sec. 28 of the Ohio Constitution, which states in part, “The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws.” Similar wording can be found in the U.S. Constitution as well, where one clause in Article I, Sec. 9 reads, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto [“after the fact”] Law shall be passed.”
The case at issue was State v. George Williams, where the defendant had been convicted for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor—conduct which took place prior to July, 2007, although Williams was convicted on the charges in December, 2007, after SB 10 had been passed.
“Prior to his sentencing hearing,” the Supreme Court’s press release stated, “Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. Pursuant to the AWA he was classified as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence, and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the next 25 years.” Under Megan’s Law, his registration and reporting requirements would have been limited to 10 years.
Williams appealed that ruling under the ex post facto/retroactivity clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, as well as arguing violation of the U.S. Constitution’s due process clauses and its ban on double jeopardy.
Another portion of the AWA, which would have allowed the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders without the necessity of judicial approval, was overturned by the same court just over one year ago.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, overturning the AWA was largely based on the fact that while several state decisions had held that the registration requirements of Megan’s Law were considered remedial rather than punitive in nature, “Following the enactment of SB 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 [the AWA] is punitive,” Justice Pfeifer stated in the majority opinion. “The statutory scheme has changed dramatically since this court described (in [State v.] Cook) the registration process imposed on sex offenders as an inconvenience ‘comparable to renewing a driver’s license.’ … And it has changed markedly since this court concluded in [State v.] Ferguson that R.C. Chapter 2950 was remedial…
“Based on these significant changes to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, we are no longer convinced that R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, even though some elements of it remain remedial…,” the high court concluded. “We conclude that SB 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of SB 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws.”
“The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Williams does a really good job of explaining how in light of these internet websites that we now have, and community notification and criminal penalties attaching and more periodic registration in person with a sheriff there, all of these measures are looking more and more and more like punishment and less and less and less like a driver’s license,” one attorney analyzed, “and as that shift has happened, it’s become more like criminal punishment, and really, the Ohio Supreme Court is the first top court in a state to characterize it that way.”
Kinsley said that through her discovery motions in the case, it had been revealed that hundreds of people in Ohio will be affected by today’s decision, and will now be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of appearing on sex offender websites.
Court: Law applied to convicted sex offenders violates constitution
The legislature’s attempt four years ago to apply a new law to already-convicted sexual offenders violated the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today.
Imposing enhanced registration and community notification requirements in the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act against defendants whose crimes were committed before the effective date of that law violates a constitutional prohibition on the General Assembly enacting retroactive laws, the justices declared.
The 5-2 decision, which reversed a ruling by the 12th District Court of Appeals, was written by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.
“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.’ “
Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Yvette McGee Brown.
Justice Terrence O’Donnell authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Robert R. Cupp.
Today’s decision came on the appeal of George Williams of Warren County, convicted in December 2007 for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor an offense that occurred before the Adam Walsh Act took effect. Williams asked the judge to sentence him under the previous sex offender classification setup, known as Megan’s Law.
The judge rejected that motion and classified him under the more stringent Adam Walsh Act as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his home county and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the ensuing 25 years.
Williams appealed, but was turned down by the 12th District Court of Appeals.
Pfeifer noted that in earlier Supreme Court decisions on previous changes in the sex offender law, justices upheld the changes because they were more remedial than punitive, and thus the constitutional ban on retroactive laws did not apply. But the changes in the Adam Walsh Act made them punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.
Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?
Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?
Under U.S., Ohio Constitutions’ Bans Against Ex Post Facto Laws
State of Ohio v. George D. Williams, Case no. 2009-0088
12th District Court of Appeals (Warren County)
ISSUE: Does retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007 as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) on offenders whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the AWA violate the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws?
BACKGROUND: In a June 2010 decision, State v. Bodyke, the Supreme Court of Ohio voided as unconstitutional two sections of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that authorized the state attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who had previously been classified by judges under an earlier version of the law, “Megan’s Law.” The Court held that the challenged provisions violated the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution. The defendants in Bodyke also argued that application of the AWA to crimes that were committed before the July 1, 2007 effective date of that legislation violated the constitutional prohibition against “ex post facto” laws (laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed). However, because the Court’s ruling on the separation of powers issue voided the Bodyke defendants’ reclassifications under the AWA and reinstated their Megan’s Law registration status, the justices declined to review the appellants’ ex post facto arguments. In this case, a defendant not affected by the Bodyke decision challenges on ex post facto grounds a trial court order that applied the AWA classification scheme in sentencing him for a crime he committed before July 1, 2007.
When the General Assembly adopted the AWA, it specified that, regardless of when a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply the new AWA sex offender classification scheme and include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the previous, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.
George Williams of Warren County was convicted in December 2007 of engaging in sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl. The conduct on which his conviction was based took place in May 2007. Prior to his sentencing hearing, Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. He was sentenced to three years of community control and classified as a Tier II offender under the AWA, requiring him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence every 180 days for the next 25 years. If he had been sentenced under the Megan’s law version of the statute, Williams, who had no prior sex-related convictions, would have been subject to once-a-year registration for 10 years.
Williams appealed, arguing that the retroactive application of the AWA registration requirements to his May 2007 offense violated the ex post facto, due process and double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. The 12th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s classification of Williams under the AWA as constitutional. The court of appeals cited several prior Supreme Court of Ohio decisions including State v. Cook (1998), State v. Wilson (2007), and State v. Ferguson (2008), in which this Court held that the statutory registration and community notification requirements imposed by the state on sex offenders were civil and “remedial” measures designed to protect the public rather than punitive measures intended to punish or deter offenders. Applying that same analysis to Williams’ case, the 12th District held that retroactive imposition of the AWA registration requirements as part of Williams’ sentence did not retroactively “increase the punishment” for his crime, and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution or the retroactivity clause of the state constitution.
Williams sought and has been granted Supreme Court review of the 12th District’s ruling.
Attorneys for Williams point out that the Cook, Wilson and Ferguson decisions cited by the 12th District all analyzed the pre-2008 sex offender classification scheme under Megan’s Law, not the more stringent requirements imposed by the AWA. They argue that these earlier decisions relied on the fact that, before a sex offender was classified under Megan’s Law, the court was required to conduct a hearing at which the judge reviewed the facts of that specific case and the defendant’s personal and social history to determine how likely that individual was to reoffend — and then impose whatever level of registration and/or community notification the court found necessary to protect the community. They note that the AWA has eliminated judicial review of an individual offender’s history or the circumstances of his crime for purposes of classification, and instead imposes identical registration and community notification requirements on offenders based exclusively on their offense. The appellants argue that the AWA classification system is no longer primarily a remedial scheme related to the actual danger posed by individual offenders.
Attorneys for the state point to specific language included in the AWA stating that the legislature’s intent was “to protect the safety and welfare of the people of this state,” and that the exchange or release of information required by the statute “is not punitive.” They argue that the registration and community notification requirements in the AWA are merely expansions of requirements that were already imposed under Megan’s Law, and assert that nothing in the 2007 changes to the law have changed the nature or intent of those requirements from remedial to punitive. Accordingly, they assert, the Court should follow its earlier holdings that requiring sex offenders to register with police and disclosing their presence to others who live, work or attend school nearby is not punishment, and applying those requirements retroactively does not offend the ex post facto provisions of the Ohio or U.S. constitutions.
NOTE: An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the position of Williams has been submitted by the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center and Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. The American Civil Liberties Union also has submitted an amicus brief supporting Williams’ position. The Ohio attorney general’s office and Franklin County prosecutor’s office have entered amicus briefs supporting the position of the state. Copies of the amicus briefs and all other filings in the case can be accessed by going to the following hyperlink: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/searchbycasenumber.asp and entering the case number, 2009-0088, in the search box provided.
Contacts
Michael Greer, 513.695.1325, for the state and Warren County prosecutor’s office.
Katherine A. Szudy, 614.466.5394, for George Williams.
Ohio Channel Video
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp
Fighting Ohio House Bill 77 – Reclassification of Sex Offenders
This is a letter we sent today to the Ohio Representatives on the eve of the Criminal Justice Committee hearing of Wed, Feb 9th, 2011. We urge all readers to write, email and call the Representatives listed on the previous posting to strongly oppose this House Bill 77:
Representative:
I lead an organization named ConstitutionalFights which strongly opposes House Bill 77, introduced by Rep. Hackett. This bill will come before the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011.
HR 77 is the Legislature’s latest attempt to re-classify citizens who have a sex offense conviction in their past. We strongly urge you to oppose advancement of this bill.
The intent of HR 77 is very similar to that of Senate Bill 10, which was ruled as a constitutional violation on June 3, 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bodyke vs, Ohio ( R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order).
The difference with HR 77 is that it orders all affected citizens to appear in court for a second sex offender classification hearing.
This is an attempt to bypass the Separation of Powers violation.
But in the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the challenges of Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto violations were not
even addressed by the Court. Had these challenges been decided, they would certainly have resulted in similar nullification of the law.
HR 77 requires any citizen with a sex offense who had not matriculated off the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 to appear before a Court for a second sex offender classification hearing. A majority of these individuals had fulfilled all requirements put upon them by the sex offender laws in place at the time of their conviction or plea. To haul them back into Court for a new classification hearing where a new set of registry requirements would be imposed is a violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. This bill violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto clauses of our Constitutional rights.
In addition to the constitutional violations of any law which attempts to retroactively reclassify offenders and to impose new and more stringent sex offender registry requirements, there are several other factors which our Legislature must consider when drafting sex offender legislation.
Firstly, there is no empirical or statistical data or evidence to support the contention that public sex offender registries have any
effect on recidivism or public safety. In fact, the only data correlating these two factors is in opposition to popular conception.
Publicly-accessible sex offender registries actually serve to isolate humiliate individuals to the point where they cannot build family and social support systems necessary to live productive and law-abiding lives. Along with residency restrictions, these public registries are no less than a Scarlet Letter which brands individuals, often
for a lifetime from normal social life and interaction.
Public sex offender registries do not prevent crimes. National media sensationalistic news reports of hideous sex offenses actually support this contention. In recent years, the highest profile news stories of sex offenses have involved men who were actively compliant registered sex offenders. These registries are simply a means for legislators to appear tough on sex crimes and an excuse for the public to feel better.
But the harm they do in the lives and families of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens caught up in the registry net is dramatic.
A popular myth is that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. The statistical data proves this to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics refute this myth. USDOJ data reports that “Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child victimizers re-arrested)”
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136)
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation study, “Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases”, concludes that the recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%. The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%.
(http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf)
Numerous other studies have reported similar data. I can provide official sources.
Finally, this is just morally unjust. Most of the individuals who would be affected by legislation such as HB 77 are those who made a terrible error in their lives many years ago (often times 10 -20 years ago).
They have been living law-abiding, productive lives in the years since they served their debt to society. All of us make mistakes in our lives, yet sex offenders are the only group to which we give no second chance. If the laws are in place at the time of conviction, we have no argument. But imposing new laws in order to recapture those who completed their obligations many years ago is simply immoral and wrong.
I could continue with supporting arguments but in an effort to be concise, I will conclude. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional supporting information to the Committee members
for their consideration in these hearings. After the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs, Ohio) which we fought for 3 years, we have extensive experience in studying sex offender laws, their effects, and the related empirical data within Ohio and throughout the nation.
We urge you to strongly oppose House Bill 77 and any future legislation which attempts to retroactively classify those who have long since satisfied all registration requirements of their offenses.
OH: House Trying to Retroactively Classify Past Offenders (Again)
As we posted last week, The Ohio House of Representatives has proposed a new bill (HR 77)
If this bill passes, anyone who had not yet matriculated off of the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 would be hauled back into court for a second sex offender classification hearing where a judge would instate a new sex offender classification. The result of this bill would be exactly what Senate Bill 10 did in 2008 (to reclassify those who should have graduated off of the registry and impose new registry requirements on them, often a life-long registration requirement).
HB 77 is to be debated in the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011 at 9 am. Everyone affected or concerned with this matter should attend this hearing at The Ohio Statehouse in Columbus Ohio. (update Feb 8: we are told by Rep. Slaby’s assistant that only sponsors will participate in this first hearing, and that opponents will not be permitted to participate).
The hearing is open to the public and opposing opinions are allowed. Just fill out the witness form when you enter the statehouse. If you have any written information for the record, you should submit it as well.
If we act proactively and if we have a large number of people attend this hearing, we can avoid a repeat of the 2-1/2 year debacle which we experienced with the implementation of Senate Bill 10 from Jan 2008 through June 2010 when it was finally ruled to be illegal.
We have a good chance to defeat this bill before it advances to a vote. But only if we have others willing to join in the fight, appear at the hearing and communicate your opposition to the bill.
In the meantime, readers should contact the bill’s sponsors and Committee members to clearly express their opposition to this House Bill 77, which would retroactively classify anyone with a sex offense who was not removed from the ESORN sex offender registry before January 1, 2008. This retroactive bill is a violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions which expressly forbid any ex post facto law. It also violates constitutional rights of the Double Jeopardy clause of both Constitutions.
Bill Sponsors:
REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon
Bob D. Hackett, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1470
Fax: (614) 719-6984
Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us
Nancy J. Garland, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us
Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us
Courtney Combs, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6721
Fax: (614) 719-6954
Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us
Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip
Phone: (614) 466-9690
Fax: (614) 719-6962
Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us
Jay Hottinger, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Fax: (614) 719-3971
Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us
Bill Patmon, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-7954
Fax: (614) 719-0010
Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us
Criminal Justice Committee:
Lynn Slaby R Chair
Phone: (614) 644-5085
Fax: (614) 719-6941
Email: district41@ohr.state.oh.us
Roland Winburn D Ranking Minority Member
Phone: (614) 466-2960
Fax: (614) 719-6940
Email: district40@ohr.state.oh.us
Bill Hayes R Vice Chair
Phone: (614) 466-2500
Fax: (614) 719-6991
Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Nancy J. Garland D
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us
Louis W. Blessing, Jr. R
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us
Connie Pillich D
Phone: (614) 466-8120
Fax: (614) 719-3582
Email: district28@ohr.state.oh.us
Danny R. Bubp R
Phone: (614) 644-6034
Fax: (614) 719-6988
Email: district88@ohr.state.oh.us
W. Carlton Weddington D
Phone: (614) 466-5343
Fax: (614) 719-3581
Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us
William P. Coley, II R
Phone: (614) 466-8550
Fax: (614) 719-6955
Email: district55@ohr.state.oh.us
Sandra Williams D
Phone: (614) 466-1414
Fax: (614) 719-0011
Email: district11@ohr.state.oh.us
Joseph W. Uecker R
Phone: (614) 466-8134
Fax: (614) 719-3966
Email: district66@ohr.state.oh.us
Ron Young R Member
Phone: (614) 644-6074
Fax: (614) 719-3963
Email: district63@ohr.state.oh.us
Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again – Part 2
It appears that a similar bill was introduced in the Ohio Senate in Nov. 2010. Senate Bill 316 was proposed by Senators: Seitz, Miller, D. Wagoner, Grendell, Turner, and Smith.
Senate Bill 316 is “to clarify for an offender or delinquent child who had SORN Law duties under the SORN Law in effect prior to January 1, 2008, the offender’s or child’s duties under the current SORN Law and the duration of those duties and to declare an emergency.”
Those who are concerned about this attempt to retroactively re-capture (onto the sex offender registries) all offenders whose crimes pre-dated the 2008 law change, should immediately contact these Senators to voice your opposition.
SB 316 Sponsors:
Bill Seitz (R)
Phone: (614) 466-8068
Email: SD08@senate.state.oh.us
Mark Wagoner (R)
Phone: (614) 466-8060
Email: SD02@senate.state.oh.us
Tim Grendell (R)
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us
Nina Turner (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us
Shirley A. Smith (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us
The intent of SB 316 and HB 77 is to:
“Create a list of all the sex offenders who were reclassified via the 2010 Bodyke ruling, notifying them all by mail, and forcing them into court one at a time to have a judge issue a new Adam Walsh Act sentencing order. It would re-reclassify all of these individuals into the AWA tier scheme, adding thousands to the registry, many for life.”
Both of these bills will be debated within the respective House & Senate Criminal Justice Committees. Readers should contact the members of this committee in order to voice your opposition to these bills.
Senate Criminal Justice Committee (re: SB 316)
http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/standing/detail/judiciary-criminal-justice.html
Tim Grendell (R) Chair |
Larry Obhof (R) |
Nina Turner (D) |
|
Eric Kearney (D) |
Frank LaRose (R) |
Peggy Lehner (R) |
|
Scott Oelslager (R) |
Joe Schiavoni (D) |
Mark Wagoner (R) |
House Criminal Justice Committee ( re: HB77)
| Criminal Justice | |||||
| Name | Party | Position | Name | Party | Position |
| Lynn Slaby | R | Chair | Roland Winburn | D | Ranking Minority Member |
| Bill Hayes | R | Vice Chair | Nancy J. Garland | D | Member |
| Louis W. Blessing, Jr. | R | Member | Connie Pillich | D | Member |
| Danny R. Bubp | R | Member | W. Carlton Weddington | D | Member |
| William P. Coley, II | R | Member | Sandra Williams | D | Member |
| Joseph W. Uecker | R | Member | |||
| Ron Young | R | Member | |||
Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again
CALL TO ACTION:
Ohio Legislators are going at it again. Just six months after having been soundly defeated in the June 2010 Bodyke vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, seven Ohio House Representatives have proposed new legislation to retroactively revise Ohio’s sex offender laws to re-capture all offenders who committed crimes before 2008 onto the rolls of the sex offender registry.
Those concerned about this proposed legislation must contact the seven Representatives immediately to express their opposition to this bill. If we are forced to do so, ConstitutionalFights will return to the battlefield to help defeat this latest attempt by the Ohio Legislature to violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.
The newly proposed bill, House Bill 77 of the 129th General Assembly would amend and repeal parts of the existing Ohio sex offender statutes to:
“clarify that SORN Law definitions of sexually oriented offenses, child-victim oriented offenses, tier classifications, public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants, and related terms include the specified offenses regardless of when they were committed and to provide for court reclassification of offenders and delinquent children who committed their sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense prior to January 1, 2008, and had SORN Law duties based on that offense into one of the tier classifications of the current SORN Law.
Bill Sponsors:
REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon
Bob D. Hackett, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 84
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-1470
Fax: (614) 719-6984
Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us
Nancy J. Garland, Representative
State Representative (D)
District: 20
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us
Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore
State Representative (R)
District: 29
Term: 4th
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us
Courtney Combs, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 54
Term: 5th (includes appointed and elected terms)
Term Limit: Not eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 644-6721
Fax: (614) 719-6954
Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us
Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip
State Representative (R)
District: 23
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-9690
Fax: (614) 719-6962
Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us
Jay Hottinger, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 71
Term: 3rd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
12th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Fax: (614) 719-3971
Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us
Bill Patmon, Representative
State Representative (D)
District: 10
Term: 1st
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-7954
Fax: (614) 719-0010
Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us
We seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio should this legislation be put into law. We also still seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio regarding the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 2010 for damages of those 30,000 former offenders who were maintained on the sex offender registry 2-1/2 years after they should legally have been removed.
We must collectively hit these legislators squarely in the “front teeth” this time to assure that we do not experience what we experienced between 2008 and 2010.
Adam Walsh Act Guide
The Adam Walsh Act and its effects on America By Randy English (SOSEN.org)
Download this paper here. (PDF)
Outline:
What is the AWA and how does it affect you?
Overview and History of the Jacob Wetterling Act
Brief Summary of Adam Walsh Act Provisions
The Cost of the AWA
Is the Public Registry needed?
Findings based on the research
Stranger Danger: the Facts
Is the AWA punitive, punishment?
Court victories against the AWA
Collateral Damage of the Adam Walsh Act
Other effects of the registry and the AWA
Ohio Attorney General New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders
ohioattorneygeneral.gov: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders (official announcement).
sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders (important analysis).
8/27/2010(COLUMBUS, Ohio) – Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced today that his office has received a federal grant that will help county sheriffs keep better track of registered sex offenders.
The $155,546 grant will pay for two new programs. (your tax dollars)
The first will allow the Attorney General’s Office to develop a phone and e-mail alert system that will send automated messages to offenders and sheriffs’ offices around Ohio, five days before offenders are supposed to re-register as part of their reporting requirements. The system also will track phone numbers or e-mail addresses that no longer are in operation, alerting sheriffs’ offices if the contact information provided by offenders is incorrect.
The second part of the grant will help county sheriffs’ offices fund extradition of offenders who moved to other states without notifying local authorities as required by law.
Analysis from sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com:
“Of course this new system of tracking likely will catch offenders unaware and maybe arrested, when they are actually compliant. For instance, if a phone is shut off because one cannot pay a bill, that would cause the registrant to be arrested. If a registrant doesn’t use his/her e-mail addresses frequently, the e-mail provider will tag that account for being dormant and eventually close the e-mail account, causing the registrant to be arrested. Next, if a registrant has many e-mail addresses each for different purposes, will s/he be arrested because he decides to no longer use one of them? There is a big difference in having a e-mail address and using it, this new system forces registrants to use ALL e-mail addresses regularly or face arrest.”
Don’t forget: The Ohio Attorney General has still not complied with the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 3, 2010. While 2300 registrants are slated to be removed from the sex offender registry as a result of this ruling, only 1000 names have been removed from the list in three months’ time. We must all continue to call and contact the Ohio AG office to force them to comply with the law. 90 days after Bodyke, the Ohio AG office is in violation with Ohio law. Click Watchdog icon below for contact information:
Sexual Offender Facts
BLUESHIFT: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.
Sexual Offender Facts Graphs and Statistics with footnotes and references.
Excerpts:
“Today in Ohio nearly 25,000 (or 99.99%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. (.75/25000)*100 = 99.99%.”
“The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse).”
Ohio AG Petition for Clarification Denied by Ohio Supreme Court
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3737
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
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087
E-fax 1 866 293 1021
Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:
800-282-0515
Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:
800-282-0515
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 OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
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 ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (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 constitutionalfights@yahoo.com with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.
Repeal Adam Walsh Act Laws ! ConstitutionalFights.wordpress.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.