Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A juvenile court judge in Hamilton County, Ohio, presided over the trial of a thirteen-year-old accused of felonious assault. The judge found the juvenile not delinquent and sealed the case record under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2151.356(B)(1)(d). After the juvenile was later killed, the Cincinnati Enquirer requested the trial transcript, which the judge denied, citing the statute.The Cincinnati Enquirer challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 2151.356, arguing that the Ohio Constitution's open courts provision prohibits sealing court records without an individualized determination balancing the interests of the juvenile and the public. The juvenile court judge argued that the open courts provision does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, relying on precedent from the Ohio Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the open courts provision of the Ohio Constitution applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court determined that R.C. 2151.356 is unconstitutional because it mandates the sealing of records without an individualized balancing of interests. The court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the juvenile court judge to provide access to the trial transcript and a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of the sealing order. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom" on Justia Law

Plain-clothes detectives from the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force observed Terrance Cunningham, a known suspected drug trafficker, driving a minivan. They relayed this information to Detective Benjamin Martens, who confirmed that Cunningham did not have a valid driver’s license. Detective Martens located the minivan in a convenience store parking lot, where Cunningham was standing next to the vehicle and Katrina Hale, the passenger, was exiting the store. When questioned, Cunningham claimed Hale was the driver. Hale, appearing nervous, was detained by Detective Martens, who subsequently searched her purses and found methamphetamines.The Licking County Common Pleas Court found that Hale was no longer a passenger when detained and granted her motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, including her statements and the contents of her purses. The court reasoned that since Hale was not in the vehicle at the time of the stop, the detention was unjustified. However, the court did not address whether the search of Hale’s purses was justified independently of her detention.The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Hale remained a passenger and could be detained for the duration of the stop. The appellate court found that the evolving circumstances justified extending the stop and that the search of Hale’s purses was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that Detective Martens had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Hale as part of the investigatory stop. The court found that Hale’s actions and admissions during the stop provided sufficient grounds for her detention. However, the court did not address the constitutionality of the search of Hale’s purses, as Hale did not develop this argument in her appeal. View "State v. Hale" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped a car because the car’s owner had a suspended driver’s license. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer realized the driver was not the owner but asked the driver for his license anyway. The driver, who also did not have a valid license, was found with an illegal firearm in the vehicle, leading to the arrest of both the driver and a passenger.The trial court denied the defendants' motions to suppress the evidence found in the car, leading to their no-contest pleas. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to continue the stop after realizing the driver was not the car’s owner. The court held that the evidence obtained from the continued detention should be suppressed.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Eleventh District’s decision. The court held that under United States Supreme Court precedent, specifically Rodriguez v. United States, an officer who has lawfully initiated a traffic stop may make ordinary inquiries necessary to complete the mission of the stop, including confirming that the driver has a valid driver’s license. The court concluded that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking the driver for his license after realizing the driver was not the car’s owner. The judgments of the trial court were reinstated. View "State v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

A proposed constitutional amendment in Ohio seeks to repeal Articles XI and XIX of the Ohio Constitution and add Article XX, changing the standards and procedures for drawing electoral districts. The amendment would create a 15-member redistricting commission responsible for adopting redistricting plans. Citizens Not Politicians, a coalition aiming to end gerrymandering, and other relators challenged the ballot language and title adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose, arguing they were misleading.The Ohio Ballot Board approved the ballot language by a three-to-two vote. Relators filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to adopt new language and title. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, focusing on whether the ballot language and title would mislead, deceive, or defraud voters. The court found that sections five and eight of the ballot language were misleading. Section five inaccurately limited judicial review to a "proportionality standard," and section eight failed to mention the public's right to participate in the redistricting process through public meetings and hearings.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State to reconvene and adopt revised ballot language addressing these defects. The court denied the writ in all other respects, finding the remaining sections of the ballot language and the ballot title to be factually accurate and not misleading. The motion for leave to withdraw the answer was granted, and the motion to strike was denied as moot. View "State ex rel. Citizens Not Politicians v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

The relator, Justin Tjaden, sought a writ of mandamus to have his name placed on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot as an independent candidate for the office of state representative of Ohio House District 99. Tjaden's petition was found to be 124 valid signatures short of the required number. He argued that the boards of elections exceeded their authority by invalidating signatures as "not genuine" and violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights. Tjaden also contended that the statutory requirement for independent candidates to submit a petition with signatures amounting to at least one percent of registered voters who cast ballots for governor in the 2022 general election was unconstitutional.The Geauga County Board of Elections determined that Tjaden's petition contained 371 valid signatures, which was insufficient to qualify for the ballot. Tjaden attempted to challenge this decision in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas but was unsuccessful due to procedural issues. He then filed a complaint in the same court and a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court dismissed his first mandamus action based on the jurisdictional-priority rule but allowed him to file a second mandamus action after his common-pleas-court case was removed to federal court.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Tjaden's writ of mandamus. The court held that Tjaden did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, even if all contested signatures were deemed valid. The court also found that Tjaden's procedural due process rights were not violated, as the mandamus action provided him with the necessary process. Additionally, the court declined to address Tjaden's equal protection claim, stating that even if the statute were declared unconstitutional, there would be no statutory requirement for an independent candidate to qualify for the ballot. Thus, the court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Michael Jones was convicted by a jury of ten drug-trafficking and drug-possession charges. Before the trial, Jones filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from a safe in a house, arguing that the consent to search was invalid and the search warrant for the safe was insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Jones to an aggregate prison term of 22 to 24.5 years.Jones appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the evidence as coerced and the protective sweep as unconstitutional. The appellate court agreed, finding that Jones's trial counsel had a reasonable basis to challenge the consent and the protective sweep. The court concluded that the failure to raise these arguments constituted deficient performance and prejudiced Jones. The appellate court ordered a limited remand for Jones to file a new motion to suppress and for the trial court to hold a suppression hearing, staying the consideration of Jones’s remaining assignments of error.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that it had jurisdiction under Article IV, Section 2(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2505.03(A). The court found that the First District did not comply with App.R. 12(A)(1)(a) and (c) because it did not affirm, modify, or reverse the trial court’s judgment and did not decide all assignments of error. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the First District, vacated its entry ordering limited remand, and remanded the case to the First District to enter a judgment that complies with App.R. 12. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Damon L. Taylor, who was charged with felony murder in the adult court after the juvenile court found probable cause to believe that Taylor was complicit in a murder. The adult court convicted Taylor of felony murder, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals vacated the conviction, arguing that the adult court lacked jurisdiction to convict Taylor of felony murder as the juvenile court had not found probable cause for that specific offense. The appellate court also ruled that Taylor's statements to the police should have been suppressed as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed with the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the adult court did have jurisdiction over the felony-murder charge against Taylor. The court reasoned that the felony-murder charge was rooted in the same acts and events as the complicity-to-commit-murder charge, which was the subject of the juvenile complaint. Therefore, under former R.C. 2151.23(H), the adult court had jurisdiction over the felony-murder charge.Regarding Taylor's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Supreme Court held that this right did not attach until a criminal prosecution had commenced, which occurred after the police interrogated Taylor. Therefore, the state did not violate Taylor's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it interviewed him in the absence of his attorney. Even if the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached, Taylor validly waived it when he relinquished his Fifth Amendment right to counsel after he received the Miranda warnings.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to that court for further proceedings. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Deonta Boyd, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to aggravated murder with a firearm specification, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court accepted Boyd's pleas and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 41 years. Boyd did not appeal his convictions or sentence but has attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw his guilty pleas multiple times. In March 2023, Boyd filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition, claiming that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their counterparts in the Ohio Constitution. He alleged that the trial court failed to inform him that he was waiving his constitutional right to compulsory process at the 2006 plea hearing.The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed Boyd's prohibition complaint, holding that Boyd could have challenged any defect in the plea colloquy on direct appeal and that any issue concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to advise him of his right to compulsory process is therefore barred by res judicata. Boyd appealed the dismissal of his complaint.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeals' judgment. The court found that Boyd had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law to raise his claim, including a direct appeal, a petition for postconviction relief, and a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court also found that the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him. Therefore, Boyd was not entitled to a writ of prohibition, and the Sixth District correctly dismissed the prohibition action. View "State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a criminal defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendant, Eli Carter, was found guilty of having sexual relations with his adopted daughter. He argued that his right to face-to-face confrontation was violated because the trial court allowed a witness to testify remotely via video conference.The trial court had allowed the remote testimony due to the witness's unavailability to testify in person due to unpredictable winter weather and uncertain airline schedules. The court also noted the state's identification of the witness as important and found his testimony relevant and admissible. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the remote testimony violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.The Third District Court of Appeals rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court of appeals noted that the trial court had found that airline-labor shortages and other causes were creating unprecedented travel delays. The court further stated that even if it were to assume that the possibility of inclement weather was insufficient to warrant an exception for the witness's video testimony, the trial court's determinations were justified on a case-specific finding based on an important public policy involving the COVID pandemic.The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed that the trial court erred by allowing the remote testimony. The court held that the trial court's generalized concerns about COVID-19 risks and travel delays did not constitute a "case-specific finding of necessity," sufficient to abridge the defendant's right to face-to-face confrontation. However, the court also concluded that the trial court's error was harmless given the remaining evidence at trial. The court found that there was no reasonable possibility that the witness's testimony contributed anything to the jury's findings of guilt that it could not have gleaned from other witnesses. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals, albeit on different grounds than those relied upon by that court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ohio General Assembly passed a temporary law (H.B. 197) stating that for a limited time, Ohio workers would be taxed by the municipality that was their “principal place of work” rather than the municipality where they actually performed their work. Josh Schaad, who primarily worked from his home in Blue Ash during the pandemic, challenged this law after his employer withheld municipal taxes from his wages and forwarded them to Cincinnati, the location of his employer's business. Schaad's principal argument was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids an Ohio municipality from taxing a nonresident for work performed outside of that municipality. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected Schaad's argument and affirmed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals, holding that the Due Process Clause did not prohibit the General Assembly from directing that an Ohio citizen pay taxes to the municipality where the employee’s principal place of work was located rather than to the subdivision of the state where the employee actually worked. The court also held that the General Assembly's power to pass emergency legislation did not expand its substantive constitutional powers. View "Schaad v. Alder" on Justia Law