2018 Ohio 1062
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Oct. 2016 Matthew Price was struck while riding a motorized skateboard in a Blue Ash crosswalk and was cited under Blue Ash Code §311.03(a) (the "toy-vehicle ordinance").
- The ordinance prohibits roller skates, sleds, toy vehicles, skateboards, or similar devices on streets/highways/public lots unless the area is designated a "play street" or "play lot."
- Price was found guilty in mayor’s court, appealed to municipal court, and at a bench trial the municipal court found the ordinance unconstitutional (void for vagueness and infringing a constitutional right of movement), and entered a not-guilty verdict.
- The City appealed the municipal court’s legal ruling (not the acquittal) under R.C. 2945.67(A); this court granted leave to review the constitutional holding.
- The court evaluated (1) whether the ordinance infringed a fundamental right to intrastate travel/movement and (2) whether the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague or effectively confined skateboards to play zones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance violates a constitutional right of movement/personal enjoyment | City: ordinance does not implicate fundamental right to intrastate travel | Price: ordinance burdens a right to movement and personal enjoyment by confining skateboards to play zones | Court: ordinance does not implicate fundamental right to travel because it burdens a mode of transport, not the right to travel generally; City wins |
| Whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as applied to motorized skateboards | City: ordinance gives fair notice and includes "skateboard" and "similar device," so motorized boards are covered | Price: lack of definition for "motorized skateboard" renders ordinance vague as applied | Court: ordinance is not void for vagueness as applied; a person of common intelligence can determine that motorized skateboards fall within "skateboard" or "similar device"; City wins |
| Whether the ordinance confines skateboards to designated "play zones" (i.e., bans them elsewhere) | City: plain language bans devices only on streets/highways/public lots and does not prohibit use on sidewalks or other areas | Price: ordinance unlawfully restricts skateboards to play lots/streets, infringing enjoyment | Court: municipal court erred; ordinance does not confine skateboards to play zones; City wins |
| Whether the municipal court should have balanced interests before invalidating the ordinance | City: court failed to balance governmental and individual interests | Price: balancing unnecessary because right infringed | Court: moot (court resolved lack of fundamental-right issue), no balancing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419 (recognizes fundamental right to intrastate travel under due process and analyzes narrow tailoring)
- Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.) (recognizes local right to travel through public spaces under federal constitution)
- State ex rel. Yates v. Court of Appeals for Montgomery Cty., 32 Ohio St.3d 30 (government may appeal non-final legal rulings in criminal cases under R.C. 2945.67)
- State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (discusses scope of governmental appellate review of trial-court legal rulings)
- State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (void-for-vagueness standard: statute must give persons of common intelligence fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement)
- State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (undefined statutory terms may be given their common everyday meaning)