{"id":8243,"date":"2007-10-07T22:17:03","date_gmt":"2007-10-08T03:17:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/10\/07\/ohio-high-court-to-hear-sex-offend"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:41","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:41","slug":"ohio-high-court-to-hear-sex-offender-retroactivity-case-this-week","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/10\/07\/ohio-high-court-to-hear-sex-offender-retroactivity-case-this-week\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio high court to hear sex offender retroactivity case this week"},"content":{"rendered":"

T<\/strong><\/em>his Wednesday (October 10, 2007), the eyes of America’s “sex offender stakeholder community” will be turned to the Ohio Supreme Court, when it hears oral argument in the case of Francis Hyle, Green Township Law Director, et al. v. Gerry R. Porter, Jr.<\/em> (Case No. 2006-2187, pleadings and orders<\/a>). The Porter case<\/em>, on appeal from the 1st District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati (Hyle v. Porter<\/a><\/em>, 170 Ohio App.3d 710, 2006-Ohio-5454), will decide whether Ohio’s residency restrictions on sex offenders can be applied to a felon whose crime occurred prior to the law<\/a>‘s effective date in 2003. (via Sentencing Law and Policy<\/em><\/a>, Oct. 7, 2007; and Cleveland Law Library Weblog<\/a><\/em>) Five weeks ago, in Mikaloff v. Walsh<\/em><\/a>, a federal district court blocked retroactive application of that very statute (see our prior post<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As reported<\/a> in today’s Columbus Dispatch<\/em>:<\/p>\n

“Cincinnati sex offender Gerry R. Porter Jr. . . . was forced to move from the home that he has owned since 1991 because it is 983 feet from St. Jude Elementary School. He, his wife and two sons moved into a rented apartment in October 2005. Someone burned down the house they owned on Easter Sunday of 2006 (no one has been charged), and they plan to rebuild and move back if permitted.<\/p>\n

“Porter committed his crimes at his home before the law took effect.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The article’s title captures the situation quite well: “Sex-offender ghettos: Get-tough laws force predators to move but do little to make kids safer<\/a>” (Oct. 7, 2007). The lengthy and informative piece in the Sunday Dispatch<\/em> supplies details and arguments similar to those you’ve seen in a series of posts here at f\/k\/a<\/em>, since last June, when we started voicing opposition to the sex offender residency restrictions passed by the “PanderPols<\/em><\/a>” who make up the Schenectady County [NY] Legislature. [See, e.g.<\/em>, our discussion<\/a> of NYCLU’s position, and the links collected at the foot of the our original post<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

\n

The beetle I righted
\nflies straight into
\na cobweb<\/p>\n

…………………………….. by George Swede – Almost Unseen<\/em> (2000)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Ohio high court will be settling a split within the state’s lower appellate courts on the retroactivity issue. [See <\/em>Nasal v. Dover<\/em><\/a>, 2006-Ohio-5584 (Court of Appeals for Miami County, Oct. 20, 2006), which would not enforce the law.] According to Porter’s lawyer, David A. Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, it “is a landmark case, however it turns out.” In its decision requiring Porter to move, the 1st District Court of Appeals blithely brushed aside his constitutional claims, stating in Hyle v. Porter<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n