Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Can Sex Offender Databases Contain Info on Juvenile Sex Offenders?

See update to this post Ohio AG Looking into Whether Juvenile Offenders Can Appear on E-Sorn Database.  While the Ohio e-SORN database says that by law it can not contain information on juvenile offenders, Attorney General Marc Dann is looking into this issue.  So, whether e-SORN can contain information on juvenile offenders is by no means clear.

While it is clear that information on juvenile offenders can not appear on the Ohio Attorney General's E-Sorn database, Butler county is including some juvenile offenders in their sex offender database.  Butler County officials interpret Ohio Revised Code 2950.081 as stating that juveniles classified as habitual sexual offenders who have beem convicted of major offenses may have their information disclosed to the public via the Internet. Major offenses include convictions for murder, rape and felonious assault.  The Attorney General issued an opinion in 2002 regarding Internet dissemination of sex offender information. OAG Opinion 02-040.  Butler Lists Sex Offenders of All Ages by Lauren Pack, Journal News, Feb. 5, 2007. 

Update to Maple Heights Parental Responsibility Ordinance

Amendments have been made to the Maple Heights Ordinance requiring parents to pay restitution for the criminal acts of their minor child under some circumstances.  The following language was removed from the ordinance, "It is no defense to a charge under this section that no minor has been convicted of or found delinquent as the principal offender."  The current ordinance is numbered 648.20, and the prior ordinance was numbered 648.19.  To see the amended ordinance Download maplehtsordparental.pdf.   See our prior post:  Maple Heights Parents May have to Pay for Child's Crimes. 

Full Disclosure Polygraph Test for Juvenile's Probation Found Improper

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the juvenile court could not require a juvenile sex offender to take "full disclosure" polygraph test as part of his probation. The specific issue addressed was "whether requiring a juvenile to undergo unlimited polygraph testing on demand, compelling answers to every question and requiring the offender to pass every test is an unreasonable probation term and a violation of the child's constitutional right against self-incrimination."  The court held that before such a polygraph test can be used, there must be evidence that the test is needed in particular case for treatment and monitoring of the juvenile.  Additionally, the juvenile can not be compelled to make self-incriminating statements.  In re D.S., 2006-Ohio-5851.  See  Top Ohio Court Rules in Warren Case by Jon Craig, Cincinnati Enquirer, Nov. 29, 2006; Ohio Supreme Court Summaries: "Court Limits Polygraph Orders in Juvenile Cases, Bars Compulsion of Self-Incriminating Statements".   

Cuyahoga Juvenile Court Must Hold Hearing Before Closing Proceeding to Public, Ohio Supreme Court Says

"In a multifaceted decision addressing the public's right to access juvenile court proceedings and documents, the Supreme Court of Ohio today granted writs sought by the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper ordering a Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court judge to conduct evidentiary hearings before granting motions to close court proceedings to the public, and requiring the court to give public notice of the filing of motions to close proceedings and of scheduled hearings on such motions by making that information available on a publicly accessible docket.

The Court's per curiam decision also held that juvenile courts must allow public access to written motions seeking to close courtroom proceedings, and to the contents of hearing notices and the court's decisions granting or denying closure motions. The Court specified that in providing copies of these documents to the public, juvenile courts should redact (block out) any confidential information they may contain."

Juvenile Court Must Hold Hearing Before Closing Proceedings, Make Docket Entries Accessible , Ohio Supreme Court Summaries, Aug. 30, 2006; State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 2006-Ohio-4437.  See our prior post: Plain Dealer Sues Juvenile Court.

Juvenile Court No Longer Returning Incorrect Fee Bills by Mail

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court will no longer return incorrect guardian ad litem and assigned counsel fee bills by mail.  You will receive a phone call concerning the incorrect bill.  If the bill is not corrected within seven days after the call, the fees will be reduced 50%.  For further information see Law and Fact Lite, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 7-31-2006.

New Court Rules Effective July 1, 2006

Amended Ohio Civil Rules, Criminal Rules, Evidence Rules, Juvenile Rules and Traffic Rules effective July 1, 2006 are posted on the Ohio Supreme Court's website.  Go to:  Ohio Rules of Court

South Euclid Considers Daytime Curfew

The city of South Euclid is considering imposing a curfew on youths which will last from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., giving officers a chance to ask children why they are on the streets during school hours.  Opponents feel this is a violation of rights, and the truant officer should handle kids playing hookie.  Proponents say the truant officer is overwhelmed, and the law will help with daytime crime committed by juveniles.  The city is also considering an ordinance which will impose penalties on parents when their child commits a misdemeanor or felony.  See Daytime Curfew Panned by Jeff Piorkowski, The Sun Messenger, June 15, 2006 and So Your Kids Break the Law? Fine! by Jeff Piorkowski, The Sun Messenger, April 27, 2006.  Also see our prior post:  Maple Heights Parents May have to Pay for Child's Crimes, April 19, 2006.

Plain Dealer Sues Juvenile Court

The Plain Dealer filed an action in mandamus and prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court because it was denied access to certain Cuyahoga County juvenile delinquency proceedings.  Per RC 2151.35, "The court may exclude the general public from its hearings in a particular case if the court holds a separate hearing to determine whether that exclusion is appropriate".  Juv.R. 27(A)(1) states that the judge may exclude the general public but can not exclude persons with a direct interest in the case or "persons who demonstrate, at a hearing, a countervailing right to be present".  The Plain Dealer asserts that Judge Alison Floyd ordered certain hearings closed to the public without first having the required "closure hearing".  See State ex rel. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. The Honorable Alison Floyd, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2006-0945.  The Plain Dealer seeks transcripts from the hearings it was barred from attending.  The PD also wants the court to provide public notice of closure hearings.  Cuyahoga County's juvenile court docket is currently concealed, although other counties make their juvenile court docket available.  See "Plain Dealer Seeks Access to Cuyahoga Juvenile Court" by Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer, May 13, 2005. 

Maple Heights Parents May have to Pay for Child's Crimes

Under a new ordinance, Maple Heights parents may be convicted of failing to supervise a minor if their child commits a crime.  The child does not have to be convicted of the crime.  The parent will not be found guilty if they convince the court that they have taken reasonable steps to control their child.  A first offense is a minor misdemeanor, with a fine of up to $150.00.  A first offender may be sentenced to parenting classes, rather than a fine.  Parents may also be ordered to pay up to $3,000 in restitution to the victim.   Maple Heights Adopts Responsibility Law by Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer, April 19, 2006. To read Maple Heights Ordinance No. 2006-38, which creates new Codified Ordinance No. 648.19, Download _0419145718_001.pdf.  Ohio parents may also be civilly liable under ORC 3109.09 to a person whose property is damaged or stolen by their child.

Community Leaders Criticize Pretrial Release Decisions of Juvenile Court

Community leaders feel that the Juvenile Court should take more care in the pretrial release of teens accused of violent crimes.  The court appears to be under pressure to release the accused juveniles because the detention facility is overcrowded.  The juveniles are able to cut off the home detention bracelets or disregard them entirely.  The Juvenile Court responds that it has guidelines for arraignment, one of which is that if a gun was allegedly part of the crime, there must be a compelling reason for release.  Additionally, the court must consider the rights of the accused juvenile, who may be innocent.  The magistrates typically contact the child's family to see how the child is behaving at home and at school, and whether an adult is at home to supervise the child.  The court is attempting to obtain better home detention equipment.   Question of Balance in Juvenile Justice by Rachell Dissell, The Plain Dealer, April 10, 2006.