164 Ohio Misc. 2d 18
Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Ci...2011Background
- Hill owned residence at 1765 Gerrand Ave, Columbus, since 1994 (sole owner after 2007).
- MechS opened within 1,000 feet of Hill’s home in 2006.
- Hill was convicted of attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor on Oct. 4, 2005.
- R.C. 2950.031/2950.034 govern residency restrictions for sex offenders; 2950.034 added day-care centers/preschools.
- Franklin County filed injunctive-relief action on Feb. 26, 2010 seeking enforcement of the residency restriction.
- Court considers retroactivity of the residency restriction when Hill established residence before the statute’s effective date, but was convicted after.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2950.034 can be retroactively enforced. | MechS locator retroactivity; Hill established residence after statute’s effective date. | Hyle/Whalen indicate nonretroactivity when residence existed before effective date. | No retroactive application; summary judgment for Hill. |
| Whether applying the residency restriction would infringe property rights. | Restricts Hill’s right to reside; could lead to continual uprooting. | State’s interest in protecting children justifies restriction. | Restriction not retroactively applied; would infringe rights if applied as to Hill. |
| Role of prior cases (Hyle/Whalen) in analysis of effects on Hill. | Whalen supports prospective application; Hyle limits retroactivity of designation. | Statutory language and timing govern; retroactivity is limited. | Hyle/Whalen control; Hill entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2008) (retroactivity limited; bona fide residency analysis under 2950.031/034)
- O’Brien v. Whalen, 2009-Ohio-1807 (Ohio 2009) (addressed retroactivity of occupancy after statute effective date)
- Whalen, 2009-Ohio-1807 (Ohio 2009) (residency restriction applied prospectively when occupancy post-dates statute)
- Nasal v. Burge, 2009 Ohio-1643 (Ohio 2009) (precluded retroactive application where occupancy occurred after statute)
- Nasal v. Dover, 169 Ohio App.3d 262 (Ohio 2006) (pre-enactment ownership/occupation context influencing retroactivity)
- Mutter v. State, 171 Ohio App.3d 563 (Ohio 2007) (property rights include use/enjoyment; residency protected)
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (protects right to use and reside property; broader than ownership)