2021 Ohio 3923
Ohio2021Background
- Judge Mark E. Repp (Tiffin‑Fostoria Municipal Court) ordered a courtroom spectator, A.O., to submit to a drug test after observing her quietly sitting in the gallery during unrelated proceedings; she was not charged, on probation, or disruptive.
- A.O. refused, was found in direct contempt by Repp, and Repp jailed her for ten days or until she submitted to testing; she was immediately remanded and subjected to security and medical screenings while incarcerated.
- The Third District Court of Appeals reversed Repp’s contempt judgment, holding the record lacked observations supporting impairment and that he lacked authority to compel a drug test; the contempt finding was vacated and the case remanded.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Repp with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(B). The Board found misconduct, identified aggravating and mitigating factors, and recommended suspension.
- The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and suspended Repp from the practice of law for one year (no stay) and immediately suspended him from judicial office without pay for the duration of the disciplinary suspension; costs were taxed to Repp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Repp violated professional and judicial‑conduct rules by singling out and humiliating a spectator and ordering a drug test | Repp’s summary contempt, coercive drug‑test order, and undignified comments violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.8(B) | Repp claimed authority to control his courtroom and acted to preserve court dignity; asserted intent to help and concern about impairment | Court adopted board findings: Repp violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.8(B) |
| Whether Repp had legal authority to compel a spectator to submit to a drug test or summarily punish her for refusal | Contempt power and statute do not authorize compelling a spectator to undergo drug testing absent conduct that obstructs court | Repp asserted inherent contempt authority to secure court dignity and control the courtroom | Appellate court and the Supreme Court concluded the contempt order and command to submit to testing were unsupported by law and improper |
| Whether the deprivation of liberty (jail) was justified and constitutionally permissible | Punishing a non‑participant for mere presence and alleged impairment deprived A.O. of liberty without legal basis | Repp argued summary contempt for misbehavior is available to secure administration of justice | Court found no record basis for impairment, so the incarceration was an abuse of contempt power and impermissible |
| Appropriate sanction for judicial misconduct of this nature | Disciplinary Counsel: significant suspension to protect public confidence | Repp: acknowledged wrongdoing but sought mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation, remorse) | Court imposed a one‑year suspension from law practice with no stay and immediate suspension from judicial office without pay; costs taxed to Repp |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bachman, 163 Ohio St.3d 195, 2020-Ohio-6732, 168 N.E.3d 1178 (Ohio 2020) (bench officer abused contempt power by summarily jailing a spectator; disciplinary suspension imposed)
- Denovchek v. Trumbull County Board of Commissioners, 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 520 N.E.2d 1362 (Ohio 1988) (recognizes inherent contempt authority to punish misbehavior that obstructs administration of justice)
- In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207 (Ohio 2005) (trial court’s limited post‑appeal jurisdiction when an appeal is pending)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 113 Ohio St.3d 48, 2007-Ohio-979, 862 N.E.2d 514 (Ohio 2007) (misuse of contempt power undermines public confidence in judiciary)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Karto, 94 Ohio St.3d 109, 760 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio 2002) (discipline for judicial misconduct that demeans and intimidates parties)