2022 Ohio 2753
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2020 McVean was charged on a single ticket with OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and speeding (R.C. 4511.21); the trial court acquitted him of OVI and convicted him of speeding.
- McVean moved to seal the records of both the acquittal and the conviction; Ohio law generally bars sealing some speeding convictions but contains a narrow exception when the speeding and an acquitted offense arise from the same act/ticket.
- At the sealing hearing the state agreed McVean met the statutory eligibility criteria and declined to file an objection; the prosecutor only suggested a general governmental interest in preserving acquittals for future case analysis.
- The trial court denied the sealing application, finding a governmental interest outweighed McVean’s interest despite the state’s lack of a concrete objection.
- On appeal, the First District held the trial court abused its discretion, reversed, and remanded with instructions to seal both the OVI acquittal and the speeding conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying McVean’s application to seal records where the OVI was acquitted but the speeding conviction arose from the same ticket | State: McVean is eligible under the statutory exception and the state did not object; any asserted need to keep acquittals for future analysis was speculative | McVean: statute permits sealing both records when charges arise from same act; no governmental party (including BMV) opposed sealing | Court: Yes — abuse of discretion; no legitimate governmental interest shown that outweighed McVean’s interest; reversed and remanded to seal records |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sager, 131 N.E.3d 335 (1st Dist. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sealing decisions)
- State v. Bissantz, 40 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (legislature intended greater emphasis on individual’s interest in sealing)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (courts should not substitute policy judgments for the legislature)
- State v. Garry, 173 Ohio App.3d 168 (1st Dist. 2007) (denying sealing where government shows need is an abuse if no need is demonstrated)
- State v. Grove, 29 Ohio App.3d 318 (1st Dist. 1986) (trial court may weigh government need against privacy interest; applicant bears burden to show sealing appropriate)