Attorney Information
Senate Bill 10 

Ohio Supreme Court

Accepted for review:

Chojnacki v. Dann (2008-0991, 2008-0992, consolidated)

Certified conflict: "Whether a decision denying a request for appointment of counsel in a reclassification hearing held pursuant to Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, Senate Bill 10, is a final appealable order."

On March 23, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to brief the following issues:

• Whether sex offender reclassification hearings conducted pursuant to the provision of Am.Sub.S.B. 10 are criminal or civil proceedings.
• Whether sex offenders are entitled to the appointment of counsel for Am.Sub.S.B. 10 reclassification hearings if those proceedings are civil in nature.

In re Adrian R. (2009-0189)

PropLaw I:  The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the juvenile’s right to Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

In re Smith (2008-1624)

PropLaw I:  The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

PropLaw II:  The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw III:  The application of SB 10 violates the United States Constitution’s prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments.

PropLaw IV:  A juvenile court has no authority to classify a juvenile, adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time the hearing was conducted.

*Oral argument will be held on the same day as State v. Bodyke (2008-2502)

State v. Bodyke, (2008-2502)

PropLaw I: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders whose crimes occurred before its effective date violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

PropLaw II: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders whose crimes occurred before its effective date violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw III: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who were classified under Megan's Law effectively vacates valid judicial orders, and violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine embodied in the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw IV: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who have previously been sentenced for sex offenses violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

PropLaw V: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who have previously been subject to the provisions of either the 1996 or 2003 version of Megan's Law violates Due Process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

PropLaw VI: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who, pursuant to agreement with the Prosecutor and before the Act's effective date, entered pleas of guilty or no contest impairs the obligation of contracts as protected by the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

*Oral argument will be held on the same day as In re Smith (2008-1624).

Ohio Courts of Appeals

First District

Allison v. State, 1st Dist. No. C-080439, 2009-Ohio-498 (application of SB 10 to person with out-of-state conviction whose registration requirement expired prior to the effective date of SB 10)

In re Antwon C., 1st Dist. No. C-080847, 2009-Ohio-2567 (juvenile court discretion to impose sex offender classification)

Sewell v. State, 1st Dist. No. C-080503, 2009-Ohio-872 (retroactivity, due process, double jeopardy, separation of powers)

State v. Clay, 1st Dist. No. C-070752, 2008-Ohio-2980 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law not moot)

Second District

In re: C.A., 2nd Dist. No. 23022, 2009-Ohio-3303 (juvenile court discretion to impose sex offender classification, juvenile court authority to impose classification after 21st birthday)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Stephen Michael Anspach, 2nd Dist. No. 22599, 2008-Ohio-3859 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Jeremy G. Compton, 2nd Dist. No. 22597, 2008-Ohio-3861 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Robert Kinsler, 2nd Dist. No. 22623, 2008-Ohio-3872 (petition for writ of prohibition challenging reclassification dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Brian Ludwig, 2nd Dist. No. 22550, 2008-Ohio-3873 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Daniel Watkins II, 2nd Dist. No. 07-CA-80, 2008-Ohio-3877 (writ of mandamus challenging reclassification denied)

State v. Cook, 2nd Dist. No. 2008 CA 19, 2008-Ohio-6543 (definition of “sexually oriented offense” does not include offenses that were added by SB 10 if they were committed prior to SB 10's effective date)

State v. Desbiens, 2nd Dist. No. 22489, 2008-Ohio-3375 (ex post facto, substantive/procedural due process, right to contract, overbroad & unconstitutionally impermissible)

State v. King, 2nd Dist. No. 08-CA-02, 2008-Ohio-2594 (no right to counsel in SB 10 reclassification hearings)

State v. Landers, 2nd Dist. No. 2006-CA-42, 2008-Ohio-422 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law considered)

State vs. Moore, 2nd Dist. No. 07CA093, 2008-Ohio-6238 (retroactivity, ex post facto)

Third District

In re Gant, 3rd Dist. No. 1-08-11, 2008-Ohio-5198 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, right to contract, history & purpose of juvenile court system)

In re: Objection to Reclassification for Brown, 3rd Dist. Nos. 9-08-18 & 9-08-19, 2008-Ohio-5403 (denial of counsel in reclassification challenge hearing not final appealable order, does not affect substantial right)

In re Smith, 3rd Dist. No. 1-07-58, 2008-Ohio-3234 (no-law argument, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers)

State v. Duncan, 3rd Dist. No. 7-08-03, 2008-Ohio-5830 (ex post facto, due process)

State v. Horch, 3rd Dist. No. 14-07-47, 2008-Ohio-1484 (separation of powers, retroactivity, double jeopardy, ex post facto)

State v. Sheriff, 3rd Dist. No. 8-08-04, 2008-Ohio-5192 (notification of registration duties via notification form is sufficient)

State v. Worthington, 3rd Dist. No. 7-07-62, 2008-Ohio-3222 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process)

Fourth District

State v. Day, 4th Dist. Nos. 08CA865, 08CA866, 2009-Ohio-3755 (community notification imposed on Tier I offender, ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity)

State v. Longpre, 4th Dist. No. 08CA3017, 2008-Ohio-3832 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity)

Fifth District

In re Adrian R., 5th Dist. No. 08-CA-17, 2008-Ohio-6581 (due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishment, IAC for failure to understand new classification law, neither court nor parties clear on specifics of new law)

In re Carr, 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 19, 2008-Ohio-5689 (no-law argument)

In re D.D., 5th Dist. No. 2008 CA 00167, 2009-Ohio-2501 (juvenile court discretion to impose sex offender classification)

In re Kristopher W., 5th Dist. No. 2008 AP 03 0022, 2008-Ohio-6075 (ex post facto, retroactivity, due process)

In re M.E., 5th Dist. No. 2008CA00161, 2009-Ohio-1762 (due process, ex post facto, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishments)

In re Marcio A., 5th Dist. No. 2007 CA 00149, 2008-Ohio-4523 (no-law argument)

In re P.M., 5th Dist. No. 2008CA00152, 2009-Ohio-1761 (due process, ex post facto, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishments)

In re Timothy C., 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 27, 2008-Ohio-5675 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, separation of powers challenges waived)

State v. Gooding, 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 5, 2008-Ohio-5954 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Graves, 5th Dist. No. 07CA3004, 2008-Ohio-5763 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

Sigler v. State, 5th Dist. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010 (retroactivity, ex post facto, contracts clause)

Sixth District

Montgomery v. Leffler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-011, 2008-Ohio-6397 (separation of powers, double jeopardy, due process, equal protection, bills of attainder, cruel and unusual punishment, contracts)

State v. Bodyke, 6th Dist. No. H-07-040, 2008-Ohio-6387 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, contracts)

State v. Case, 6th Dist. No. H-08-009, 2009-Ohio-2923 (right to appointed counsel, separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process, breach of contract)

State v. Dombrosky, 6th Dist. No. WD-07-082, 2008-Ohio-6530 (challenges to classifications done prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are premature, as appellants have not suffered injury due to SB 10)

State v. Duncan, 6th Dist. No. F-08-003, 2008-Ohio-6802 (ex post facto, retroactivity, residency restrictions violate due process)

State v. Henning, 6th Dist. No. OT-08-035, 2009-Ohio-1466 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Moody, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1108, L-08-1109, 2009-Ohio-47 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity)

State v. Ohler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-010, 2009-Ohio-665 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, contracts clause)

State v. Patterson, 6th Dist. No. E-08-052, 2009-Ohio-1817 (withdrawal of guilty plea because of increased duties under SB 10)

State v. Reeves, 6th Dist. No. OT-08-047, 2009-Ohio-3225 (residency restrictions violate due process and right to privacy)

State v. Stockman, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1077, 2009-Ohio-266 (retroactivity, separation of powers, ex post facto, community notification)

State v. Taft, 6th Dist. No. WD-07-059, 2008-Ohio-5790 (double jeopardy, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers)

State v. Tuttle, 6th Dist. No. H-08-015, 2009-Ohio-1128 (retroactivity, ex post facto, double jeopardy, due process, contracts)

State v. Ulmer, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1031, 2009-Ohio-1737 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

Seventh District

State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 07 CO 39, 2008-Ohio-5051 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel & unusual punishment, due process, double jeopardy, no law)

State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 58, 2008-Ohio-6078 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

Eighth District

Gildersleeve v. State, 8th Dist. Nos. 91515 – 91519 and 91521 – 91532, 2009-Ohio-2031 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, breach of contract, relief from community notification)

In re E.L., 8th Dist. No. 90848, 2008-Ohio-5094 (no-law argument)

In re J.M., 8th Dist. No. 91800, 2009-Ohio-2880 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, double jeopardy, residency restrictions violate due process, community notification requirements, rationale for classifying adults does not apply to juvenile offenders, breach of contract, reclassification without jury trial violates Sixth Amendment)

In re P.M., 8th Dist. No. 91922, 2009-Ohio-1694 (community notification requirements for Tier II juvenile)

State v. Blanchard, 8th Dist. No. 90935, 2009-Ohio-1357 (retroactivity, ex post facto)

State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, no-law argument)

State v. Holloman-Cross, 8th Dist. No. 90351, 2008-Ohio-2189 (ex post facto, due process)

State v. Luks, 8th Dist. No. 89869, 2008-Ohio-3974 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

State v. Omiecinski, 8th Dist. No. 90510, 2009-Ohio-1066 (ex post facto, retroactivity, due process)

State v. Rabel, 8th Dist. No. 91280, 2009-Ohio-350 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Reed, 8th Dist. No. 91066, 2009-Ohio-487 (due process, retroactivity, ex post facto, abuse of discretion)

Ninth District

Brooks v. State, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009452, 2009-Ohio-1825 (residency restrictions, right to counsel, due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy, separation of powers, contract clause)

In re C.S., 9th Dist. No. 08CA0050, 2009-Ohio-1298 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, juvenile court discretion to classify, right to counsel)

In re E.B., 9th Dist. No. 24148, 2008-Ohio-5441 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, juvenile court discretion)

In re G.E.S., 9th Dist. No. 24079, 2008-Ohio-4076 (ex post facto, separation of powers, unconstitutionally vague)

In re R.P., 9th Dist. No. 23967, 2008-Ohio-2673 (ex post facto, retroactivity, no-law argument)

In re T.H., 9th Dist. No. 24147, 2008-Ohio-4843 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, juvenile court discretion)

In re W.H., 9th Dist. No. 23936, 2008-Ohio-4337 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Honey, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0018-M, 2008-Ohio-4943 (retroactivity, ex post facto, substantive due process

State v. Ralston, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009384, 2008-Ohio-6347 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Williams, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009350, 2008-Ohio-3586 (state’s appeal: trial court lacks jurisdiction to reclassify at Bezak resentencing hearing, when statute allows only AG to reclassify)

Tenth District

State v. Christian, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-170, 2008-Ohio-6304 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, substantive due process, procedural due process, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment)

Eleventh District

Ball v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-053, 2009-Ohio-4099 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, substantive due process, impairment of contracts)

In re Thrower, 11th Dist. No. 2008-G-2813, 2009-Ohio-1314 (juvenile court jurisdiction to impose sex offender classification, no-law argument)

McCostlin v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-117, 2009-Ohio-4097 (SB 10 violates separation of powers doctrine)

Naples v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0092, 2009-Ohio-3938 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process, community notification, breach of contract)

Pollis v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0055, 2009-Ohio-5058 (statutory right to challenge hearing, double jeopardy, due process, separation of powers, retroactivity, contract clause)

Spangler v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-062, 2009-Ohio-3178 (SB 10 violates separation of powers and res judicata)

State v. Brunelle-Apley, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-014, 2008-Ohio-6412 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law considered)

State v. Candela, 11th Dist. No. 2008-A-0068, 2009-Ohio-4096 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, double jeopardy)

State v. Charette, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-069, 2009-Ohio-2952 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, procedural due process, substantive due process, right to privacy)

State v. Curd, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-048, 2009-Ohio-3814 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process)

State v. Dehler, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0061, 2009-Ohio-5059 (right to reclassification hearing, res judicata, ex post facto, retroactivity, right to court-appointed counsel)

State v. Ettenger, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-054, 2009-Ohio-3525 (ex post facto, retroactivity, right to contracts, double jeopardy, separation of powers, due process)

State v. Garner, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-087, 2009-Ohio-4448 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, substantive and procedural due process)

State v. Grate, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0058, 2009-Ohio-4452 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process, impairment of contracts)

State v. Hitchcock, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-032, 2009-Ohio-4447 (SB 10 violates separation of powers doctrine)

State v. Johnson, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-015, 2008-Ohio-4666 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law; dissent says appeal moot)

State v. Kasunick, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-056, 2009-Ohio-4449 (ex post facto, bill of attainder)

State v. Lasko, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-075, 2009-Ohio-4100 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, procedural and substantive due process)

State v. Maggy, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0078, 2009-Ohio-3180 (due process, equal protection, ex post facto)

State v. Marks, 11th Dist. No. 2008-A-0048, 2009-Ohio-3790 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Petralia, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-095, 2009-Ohio-4450 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, substantive due process, right to privacy, impairment of contracts, removal of right of review)

State v. Swank, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-019, 2008-Ohio-6059 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, substantive & procedural due process)

State v. Vernon, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-066, 2009-Ohio-3937 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

Twelfth District

Brewer v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-02-041, 2009-Ohio-3157 (trial court is required to hold hearing on petition challenging reclassification)

In re A.R., 12th Dist. No. CA2008-03-036, 2008-Ohio-6566 (due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, double jeopardy)

In re S.R.P., 12th Dist. No. CA2007-11-027, 2009-Ohio-11 (no-law argument, due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishments, double jeopardy, mandatory vs. discretionary classification of juveniles)

McKinney v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-04-041, 2009-Ohio-4685 (ex post facto, double jeopardy, retroactivity, separation of powers)

Moran v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-05-057, 2009-Ohio-1840 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, contracts clause)

Ritchie v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-07-073, 2009-Ohio-1841 (right to contract, separation of powers, retroactivity, ex post facto, double jeopardy)

Searles v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-05-055, 2009-Ohio-4666 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, procedural due process)

Sears v. Ohio, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-07-068, 2009-Ohio-3541 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, cruel and unusual punishments, separation of powers, contracts)

Smallwood v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-02-057, 2009-Ohio-3682 (double jeopardy, due process, retroactivity, separation of powers)

State v. Bell, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-05-044, 2009-Ohio-2335 (ex post facto, due process, separation of powers, cruel & unusual punishment, double jeopardy)

State v. Murray, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-10-125, 2009-Ohio-2963 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State vs. Williams, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-02-029, 2008-Ohio-6195 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, separation of powers)

Common Pleas Courts

Cuyahoga County

Tremaine Evans v. State of Ohio (SB 10 violates retroactivity clause of Ohio Constitution and ex post facto clause of U.S. Constitution; sexual predator laws are classic forms of punishment, residency restrictions operate as a disability, sexual predator laws further traditional notions of punishment, AWA not tailored to meet non-punitive purpose)

Franklin County

State of Ohio v. Rubin T. Toles (Changes to frequency and duration of registration not unconstitutional; increased information required to be disclosed, residency restrictions, and increase in penalties for failure to register violate Ohio Constitution’s retroactivity clause; Individual previously determined not to be a sexual predator or who had not had a sexual predator hearing cannot now be subject to community notification)

Lorain County

Ronald Brooks vs. State of Ohio (SB 10 remedial and not punitive, rationally related to the public good and lowering recidivism; SB 10’s residency restrictions unconstitutional;  they affect an accrued substantive right and go “far beyond the reasonable monitoring of the whereabouts of the Petitioners.”)

Richland County

William Sigler v. State of Ohio (Designation as sexually oriented offender part of sentence; legislatively changing classification and increasing duration of duties not remedial changes: violate retroactivity and ex post facto; SB 10 constitutes breach of contract when plea agreement includes agreement about classification)

Federal Court

Class Action Lawsuit, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
This lawsuit resulted in an extension of the 60-filing deadline for SB 10 reclassification challenge petitions and a stay of community notification.  The order was issued Feb. 6, 2008 and dissolved June 9, 2008.

• Order Extending 60-day Filing Deadline and Staying Community Notification
• Order Denying Preliminary Injunction and dissolving agreed TRO

M.S. vs. Rogers, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio

• Order denying preliminary injunction, finding likelihood of success on contract,
  interstate compact claims

For information on federal court rulings from across the nation, please see:

• http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/awa-sorna-cases.html
• http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/caselaw.htm

Related Cases in Ohio

Mikaloff v. Walsh: the Northern District of Ohio held that Ohio's sex offender residency restrictions are punitive and that they violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution when applied retroactively.

Hyle v. Porter:  the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio’s residency restrictions do not apply retroactively to someone who bought his home and committed his offense before the effective date of the statute.

State v. Ferguson: the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio’s pre-AWA SORN law does not violate the ex post facto and retroactivity clauses of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

Related Litigation in Other States

Indiana
Wallace v. Indiana, Indiana Supreme Court (retroactive application of sex offender registration law violates state constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws)

Kansas
In the Matter of L.M., Kansas Supreme Court (juveniles have a constitutional right to jury trials)

Nevada
ACLU of Nevada v. Masto, permanent injunction, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, enjoining enforcement of Nevada’s Adam Walsh Act (ex post facto, double jeopardy, contract clause, due process)

New Jersey
G.H. v. Township of Galloway, Supreme Court of New Jersey (prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting residency restrictions)

South Dakota
In re Z.B., South Dakota Supreme Court (including juveniles on state sex offender registry violates equal protection)

Sample Motions

• Petition to Contest Application of the Adam Walsh Act

• Motion for Immediate Relief from Community Notification

• Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Hamilton County, Dec. 28, 2007

• Sample Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
  The OPD Juvenile Section filed these motions for seven juveniles who were to be included on eSORN.  Cuyahoga, Montgomery, Pickaway, and Scioto counties granted TROs for six of the juveniles.  Although there is juvenile-specific language included, much of the language should be useful for anyone filing a request for a TRO.

• Sample Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  The OPD Juvenile Section filed these motions for seven juveniles who were to be included on eSORN.  Stark County granted an injunction for one of the juveniles.  Although there is juvenile-specific language included, much of the language should be useful to anyone filing a request for an injunction.

• Motion for Relief from Community Notification and Motion for Temporary Stay

• Affidavit of Indigency

• Petition to Contest Reclassification and Application of §§ 2950.01, et seq.

• Motion to Stay Enforcement of Community Notification

• Entry to Stay Enforcement of Community Notification

• Objection to Reclassification under SB 10
  From the Montgomery County Public Defender office, this motion challenges the reclassification of a petitioner who was originally classified during the 6-month period (July–December 2007) during which courts should have been holding “dual” classification hearings, and both classifying defendants under the old SORN law and informing them of their new registration duties under AWA.  Also contains argument that there was no relevant law in effect during that 6-month period

• Petition to Contest Reclassification for Juvenile Offender Registrants

• Brief Challenging Constitutionality of SB10

• Response to Argument that Constitutional Challenges cannot be raised in SB10 hearing

Court Orders

• 6th District Stay Pending Appeal

• Athens County entry: Incarcerated person must file in county in which imprisoned

• Clermont County Entry Filing no Constitutional Violations

• Cuyahoga County Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

• Cuyahoga County Order Granting TRO

• **Cuyahoga County Opinion that SB 10 violates retroactivity clause and ex post facto**

• Fairfield County Stay Order

• Franklin County Preliminary Injunction Order
  Judges Cain and Bender have issued identical orders

• Franklin County Entry to Stay Enforcement of Community Notification

• Franklin County Order Granting Final Relief from Community Notification

• Franklin County Order Invoking Stark County Injunction

• Franklin County Entry Denying Request for Preliminary Injunction
  This vacates the order from Judge Holbrook, linked directly above.

• Franklin County Entry Staying Enforcement of Community Notification (Judge Brown)

• Franklin County Order to not collect filing fees on SB 10 petitions

• Geauga County county-wide stay

• Hamilton County Stay Order
  This was issued in response to the Motion for Immediate Relief from Community Notification above.

• Hamilton County Entry Staying Enforcement of Community Notification

• Hamilton County Entry Staying Community Notification

• Highland County SB 10 stays

• Lawrence County entry denying counsel

• Licking County Entry Denying Counsel

• Licking County Stay Order

• Licking County Preliminary Injunction Order

• Logan County Entry Appointing Counsel for SB10 Challenge Hearing

• Mahoning County county-wide stay

• Medina County County-Wide Stay

• Ottawa County Entry Staying Enforcement of Community Notification

• Pickaway County county-wide stay of community notification

• Pickaway County Order Granting TRO 1
  This was issued in response to the Sample Motion for Temporary Restraining Order above.

• Pickaway County Order Granting TRO 2
  This was issued in response to the Sample Motion for Temporary Restraining Order above.

• Richland County Decision Declaring AWA Unconstitutional

• Richland County Order Staying Community Notification

• Ross County Entry Denying Counsel

• Scioto County Stay Order  (based on federal stay)

• Stark County Preliminary Injunction Order 1
  The original entry, as prepared by Magistrate Haupt, in Judge Haas' office. 

• Stark County Preliminary Injunction Order 2
  The version of the entry that Judge Brown has signed, and will continue to sign for petitions styled as civil cases.  

• Stark County Preliminary Injunction Order 3
  The version of the entry Judge Brown has signed, and will continue to sign for petitions filed in the underlying criminal cases. 

• Stark County Preliminary Injunction Order, Time-Stamped

• Stark County Entry Clarifying Application of AWA, filed May 14, 2008

• Summit County County-wide Stay Order

• Trumbull County Entry declaring petitions civil and denying appointment of counsel

• Union County county-wide stay

• Van Wert County Preliminary Injunction Entry