Ohio High Court Rules Third Piece of Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional

6-22-2012 Ohio:

The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled a retroactive sex offender registry requirement unconstitutional.

June 22, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In February of 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court held that particular application of a federal sex offender law is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court determined that the law cannot retroactively apply to sex offenders who completed their sentences prior to July 1, 1997.

Brief History of Ohio Sex Offender Registry Law

Two laws were considered in the Ohio Supreme Court's recent ruling. Megan's Law is state legislation which established a statewide sex offender registry; it was enacted July 1, 1997. As written, Megan's Law requires nearly all persons convicted of sex crimes who had not completed their sentences by that date to register on the state list once they have been released.

In 2006, President Bush signed a federal sex offender registry into law. Known as the Adam Walsh Act, the legislation requires all sex offenders, regardless of the date of their crimes and whether or not they had completed their sentences prior to the enactment of the legislation, to register under a new classification system. States risked losing federal funding if the law was not enacted by 2008. Ohio was the first state to adopt the new law in 2008. Practically, the federal law has replaced the state language of Megan's Law.

The Recent Supreme Court Ruling

The unanimous ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court declares retroactive punishment of criminals who have served their sentences unconstitutional. The case which inspired the court's ruling involved a man who was convicted of a sex crime in 1995 and served his entire sentence before Megan's Law became active on July 1, 1997.

The man was thus not required, under Ohio's version of Megan's Law, to register with the state or disclose his sex offense to his community. When the Adam Walsh Act came into effect in 2008, he was reclassified as a Tier III sex offender under the new system, and was thus required to register for the crime he committed and completed his time for over a decade earlier. He petitioned for a challenge to the reclassification in the courts. ..For the rest of this story: by Scott Law Firm, LPA