In re S.J.
225 N.E.3d 368
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In October 2020 Cincinnati officers responded to a shots-fired call and arrested a shooting suspect on a public sidewalk/parking-lot area; multiple officers and patrol cars were on scene.
- Sixteen-year-old S.J. stood nearby and recorded the arrest on her cellphone; officers told her to “back up” and later to “get off the street.”
- S.J. initially stepped back but later shook her head, told an officer to stop talking to her, and allegedly moved in the street while continuing to record; an officer reached for her arm and her recording was obstructed; an officer’s bodycam stopped recording at that moment.
- As officers attempted to control S.J., another officer sprayed chemical irritant without a verbal warning; S.J. was secured in handcuffs (one cuff briefly not secured) and later handcuffed again.
- A magistrate dismissed all charges; the juvenile court sustained the State’s objection, adjudicated S.J. delinquent of obstruction of official business, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and escape, and entered disposition; S.J. appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court reversed all adjudications for lack of sufficient evidence and discharged S.J., emphasizing the First Amendment right to record police in public and the absence of proof of the required criminal elements.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | S.J.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obstruction of official business (R.C. 2921.31) | S.J. refused orders to leave the street, which hampered an officer and prevented him from assisting other officers. | S.J. merely recorded a public arrest, complied with initial direction, did not take an affirmative obstructive act or intend to impede officers, and had First Amendment protection to record. | Reversed — insufficient evidence: no affirmative act or proof of purpose to obstruct and no substantial hampering of officers’ duties; recording is protected. |
| Resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33) | S.J. pulled away, refused to place hands behind her back, and struggled while officers attempted to handcuff her. | Arrest was unlawful (no probable cause for obstruction), officers lacked a lawful basis or notice that she was under arrest; any resistance was to avoid excessive force. | Reversed — insufficient evidence because the underlying arrest for obstruction lacked probable cause, so resisting-arrest element (lawful arrest) was not met. |
| Disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11(A)(4) & (5)) | S.J. recklessly hindered movement on the public street and created a risk of physical harm/alarm by standing in the roadway. | Traffic was already diverted by police cruisers; S.J. acted with a lawful purpose (to record) and did not create the offensive condition or hazard alleged. | Reversed — insufficient evidence: police vehicles, not S.J., diverted traffic; recording served a lawful purpose and did not meet the statutory conditions. |
| Escape (R.C. 2921.34) | S.J. slipped her hand out of a handcuff and stood up — an attempt to break detention. | The handcuffs were never properly secured; she rubbed her eyes from the irritant and was re-cuffed shortly after — no purposeful breaking of detention. | Reversed — insufficient evidence: no established control/detention and evidence supports she acted to relieve pain, not to escape. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (First Amendment protects recording police in public)
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (constitutional protection for videotaping police in public spaces)
- Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) (recordings can exonerate officers and are protected)
- ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirming right to record public officials)
- Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (recognizing First Amendment right to record police)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight-of-the-evidence review standard)
- State v. Grice, 180 Ohio App.3d 700 (Ohio Ct. App.) (obstruction requires affirmative act and nexus to hampering)
- Garfield Heights v. Simpson, 82 Ohio App.3d 286 (8th Dist. 1992) (no obstruction where defendant’s acts were part of lawful duties or lacked intent to impede)