2014 Ohio 4745
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Sass, a pharmacist, was indicted in 2004 on multiple drug-related offenses including aggravated trafficking and illegal processing of drug documents.
- He pled guilty in 2005 to two counts of trafficking in drugs; remaining counts were nolle prosequi'd.
- In 2005, Sass was sentenced to five years of community control and ordered to pay substantial fines and costs.
- In 2012, Sass moved to seal the record under R.C. 2953.32, arguing his rehabilitation and public interests favored sealing.
- The State opposed sealing, asserting public interest in the record due to abuse of professional duties and risk to public safety.
- The trial court denied the motion in 2014, holding that maintaining the record served the public interest because Sass abused his pharmacist duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying sealing | State argued public interest outweighed Sass's sealing interests due to professional misconduct | Sass contended license restoration and monitoring negated public need to keep records open | No abuse of discretion; public interest outweighed sealing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Talameh, 2012-Ohio-4205 (Ohio) (expungement factors and abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Selesky, 2009-Ohio-1145 (Ohio) (application of sealing standards)
- State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (Ohio 2000) (expungement is a privilege, not a right)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Ohio 1996) (statutory framework for sealing emphasizes public interest)
- State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2001) (public interest can justify denial of sealing)
- State v. Webb, 2012-Ohio-2962 (Ohio) (public's right to know offenses related to public safety)
- State v. Mullins, 2005-Ohio-2193 (Ohio) (public trust concerns in public-employment offenses)
- State v. Shaffer, 2010-Ohio-6565 (Ohio) (burden to show rehabilitation at expungement hearing)
- State v. Grove, 29 Ohio App.3d 318 (Ohio App.1st Dist. 1986) (trial court best positioned to balance state and applicant interests)
- State v. Greene, 61 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 1991) (public right to know not absolute and may be distinguished)