2024 Ohio 2531
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Brooke Ehlers, Director of the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office (MCCO), received increasingly confrontational communications from Anthony Thomas and William Petry, who believed she was part of a government cover-up regarding certain deaths.
- Appellants’ communications included emails with threats of criminal charges, "legal war," harmful internet posts, and explicit threats involving Ehlers and her family.
- Appellants visited the MCCO in person, prompting a contentious interaction but no violence. They were escorted out by police.
- Ehlers successfully petitioned for an ex parte civil stalking protection order (CSPO), which after a hearing, barred appellants from possessing deadly weapons and from posting anything online that specifically named Ehlers.
- Thomas and Petry appealed, arguing the CSPO violated their First and Second Amendment rights due to the restrictions on speech and firearms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction on Online Speech | Needed to prevent mental distress and protect from harassment | Unconstitutional prior restraint and overbroad under 1st Amendment | Speech restriction unconstitutional; reversed |
| Restriction on Firearms | Necessary for safety due to threatening behavior | No evidence of use/threat; violates 2nd Amendment | Firearm restriction unsupported; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (strict scrutiny required for content-based speech restrictions)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (content-based restrictions subject to strict scrutiny)
- United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (categorizes unprotected speech, including true threats)
- Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (government generally may not restrict expression based on content)
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (upholds First Amendment’s protections against content-based bans)