Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that the evidence should have been suppressed in the underlying criminal case based on a statutory violation, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in this case.While Defendant was serving community control, his probation officer conducted a random home-check on Defendant, searched his cell phone, and discovered child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the uncovered evidence on the grounds that the suspicion-less search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the suppression motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the search violated Ohio Rev Code 2951.02(A)'s requirement that a probation officer may conduct a search only when there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that a probationer is violating the law or conditions of control. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the probation officer exceeded the scope of her authority when she searched Defendant's cell phone without reasonable grounds to believe that he had violated the law or the conditions of probation; and (2) because there was no constitutional violation, there was no basis to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the search. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court ordering forfeiture of Appellant's 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, holding that there was no equal protection violation and that, as applied to Appellant, the vehicle forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.Appellant entered a plea of no contest to one charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI). Because Appellant had two prior OVI convictions within the preceding ten years, his vehicle was seized pending the completion of the proceedings. After a forfeiture hearing held pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 4503.234 the trial court ordered Appellant to forfeit his vehicle. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory classification contained in Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v) does not violate constitutional equal protection guarantees; and (2) the forfeiture of Appellant's vehicle was not grossly disproportional and was thus not unconstitutional as applied to Appellant. View "State v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 4117.11(B)(7) does not violate the First Amendment, holding that the statute's prohibition on inducing or encouraging targeted picketing in connection with a labor-relations dispute violates the First Amendment.Section 4117.11(B)(7) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employee organization or public employees to "induce or encourage any individual in connection with a labor relations dispute to picket the residence or any place of private employment of any public official or representative of the public employer.” The common pleas court in this case rejected a constitutional challenge to the statute, ruling that section 4117.11(B)(7) was a valid, content-neutral time, place and manner limitation on speech. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the law was a form of expressive-activity suppression that was irreconcilable with First Amendment protections. View "Portage County Educators Ass'n for Developmental Disabilities v. State Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary, vacated the finding of guilt on count three charging Defendant with felony murder during an aggravated battery, and dismissed the death penalty specifications predicated on aggravated burglary but affirmed Defendant's remaining convictions and his death sentence, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of burglary.After a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated murder and three accompanying death-penalty specifications. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court largely affirmed, holding (1) contrary to Defendant's argument on appeal, the indictment in this case was not defective; (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of aggravated burglary; (3) no plain error occurred during the prosecutor's trial-phase closing argument; and (4) there were constitutional violations in this case. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of procedendo to compel Franklin County Probate Court Judge Jeffrey Mackey to lift a stay in a probate case and proceed with Relators' adoption petition, holding that the court abused its discretion by allowing the adoption proceeding to languish in this case.In July 2019, Relators filed a petition to adopt Z.W.D., identifying K.T. as the minor child's biological mother. After the Supreme Court held in 2020 that indigent parents have a constitutional right to counsel in adoption proceedings in probate court K.T. asked the probate court magistrate to appoint counsel to represent her because she was indigent. The probate court stayed the matter and then, in October 2021, determined that K.T. was indigent. In April 2022, Relators filed this complaint alleging that the probate court's stay to allow K.T. to apply for indigent representation was unreasonable and unconscionable. The Supreme Court granted a writ and ordered the probate court to appoint counsel for K.T. within thirty days of this decision, holding that the probate court should take all reasonable steps to identify potential counsel. View "State ex rel. T.B. v. Mackey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered the General Assembly to pass a new congressional-district plan that complied with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on March 2, 2022 unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party in violation of Ohio Const. art. XIX, 1(C)(3)(a).On January 14, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the congressional-district plan passed by the General Assembly was invalid in its entirety and directed the General Assembly to adopt a new plan that complied with Article XIX. After the redistricting commission adopted the March 2 plan, Petitioners filed original actions challenging the plan. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the March 2 plan did not comply with Article XIX, section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution and was therefore invalid. View "Santomauro v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of kidnapping and rape and a repeat-violent-offender specification and imposing a ten-year sentence on each count, to be served concurrently, holding that the trial court denied Defendant his constitutional right to a fair jury as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.At issue was whether Defendant's right to a fair trial was violated when the alleged victim was introduced to the jury as the State's designated representative and was permitted to sit at counsel table with the prosecutor during the proceedings. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in designating the alleged victim as the State's representative and by allowing her to sit at the prosecutor's table and that the error was not harmless, requiring reversal. View "State v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court determined that a warrantless search conducted in this case did not comport with the Fourth Amendment under the "single-purpose-container exception" to the warrant requirement, holding that when police search a bookbag in a home under circumstances that do not give rise to any exigency they must first obtain a warrant.After he was charged with illegal possession of drugs Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless search of the book bag conducted by a law enforcement officer was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the warrantless search was lawful because the book bag was in plain view and the officer had probable cause to suspect it contained contraband. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) absent exigent circumstances, the search of a closed container requires a warrant; and (2) the single-purpose-container exception to the warrant did not apply in this case because a bookbag is not a single-purpose drug container. View "State v. Burroughs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action in which Relators sought a writ of mandamus against the Ohio State Senate and its thirty-three members individually, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the House respondents to uphold Ohio Const. art. I, 21. The Supreme Court concluded that the request could be read either as a request to compel the House respondents to enact legislation prohibiting the practices to which Relators objected or as a request to prohibit the respondents from enacting legislation that would conflict with Article I, Section 21. The Supreme Court dismissed this action, holding that, under either theory, the relief sought was beyond the Court's jurisdiction to grant. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action in which Relators sought a writ of mandamus against the Ohio House of Representatives and ninety-eight of members individually, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint.Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the House respondents to uphold Ohio Const. art. I, 21. The Supreme Court concluded that the request could be read either as a request to compel the House respondents to enact legislation prohibiting the practices to which Relators objected or as a request to prohibit the respondents from enacting legislation that would conflict with Article I, Section 21. The Supreme Court dismissed this action, holding that, under either theory, the relief sought was beyond the Court's jurisdiction to grant. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio House of Representatives" on Justia Law