State v. Myers, 2016 Ohio 4893

Kirk Myers was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition against a child; he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and raised competency issues.
A September 2014 evaluation found Myers incompetent but restorable; he was sent for restoration treatment. A June 2015 re-evaluation found him still incompetent and not restorable within the statutory period. The State dismissed the charges on June 30, 2015.
The day after dismissal Myers applied under R.C. 2953.52 to seal his arrest record. The State opposed sealing, and a hearing was held in September 2015.
Evidence showed Myers has an I.Q. of 59, receives social security disability and food stamps, and has a special-needs trust; he asserted sealing was necessary for housing, employment, and social acceptance.
The State argued the record should remain public because the dismissal resulted from Myers’s incompetency (not on the merits), and the government needs transparency to protect the public and remain aware of the allegations.
The trial court denied the application, finding the State’s legitimate governmental interest in maintaining the record outweighed Myers’s interest; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court identified the State's legitimate interest sufficient to deny sealing	State: government needs transparency because dismissal was for incompetency, not on the merits; public protection and record awareness justify retention	Myers: court failed to state specifically which government interest outweighed his need; sealing necessary for housing, employment, acceptance	Court: trial court considered parties' competing interests and reasonably relied on State's asserted interest in transparency/public protection; no abuse of discretion
Whether denying sealing was an abuse of discretion given facts (nature of charges, dismissal reason, Myers's disability and financial situation)	State: probable cause existed; charges not dismissed on merits so record should be maintained to inform future protective actions	Myers: sealing is needed to avoid housing denials and other harms tied to arrest record; his disability makes harm more acute	Court: not an abuse—given nature of charges and dismissal reason, government interest outweighed Myers's interests; Myers still had certain public benefits and no evidence he was denied regular housing or employment

State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 665 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio 1996) (sealing criminal records is an act of grace created by the state)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (abuse of discretion standard and definition of unreasonable decision)