Jon Horwitz's Blog Posts

In January 2017, I posted a blog article discussed December 23, 2016, in the case of State v. Pittman, 2014-Ohio-5001, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that a person could not be criminally prosecuted for failing to make the payments set forth in an arrearage-only order issued after the date of his children’s emancipation.  The reason behind the decision was that the Nonsupport of Dependents statute, RC 2919.21(B), stated: “No person shall abandon, or fail to provide support as established by a court order to, another person whom, by court order or decree, the person is legally obligated to support.”  In determining the intent behind the statute, the Court focused on the word “is” to show the meaning, stating “RC 2919.21(B) is ambiguous.  It criminalizes a person’s failure to support – in the matter established by a court order – another person whom he is legally obligated to support.  Because the statute uses the present tense in the phrase ‘is legally obligated to support,’ a person charged with a violation must be under a current obligation to provide support.”

Thus, based on Pittman, a person who had a minor child and failed to pay a minimum $50 per month child support order and was $1,000 in arrears could be criminal prosecuted, while a person who had an adult child and no current child support order, but was $100,000 in arrears could not be prosecuted.

[Read more…]

With the 4^th of July quickly approaching, in addition to attending community firework displays, many people enjoy purchasing and shooting off their own fireworks.  The laws governing fireworks in Ohio are among the most restrictive in the country.  Because fireworks are readily available for purchase and use in nearby states, many Ohio residents assume Ohio has similar laws and are not well informed on the issue.

The purpose of this article is to provide a few highlights of the Ohio laws governing consumer fireworks.  For further information, please consult Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3743, the Ohio Fire Code (OFC) 1301:7-7-56, and the Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of State Fire Marshall.

Consumer fireworks are referred in Ohio law as “1.4G Fireworks”.  These are fireworks that may be found in a licensed fireworks showroom and sold to the public at various retail locations across Ohio.  If you choose to purchase 1.4G fireworks, you have 48 hours to take the fireworks out of Ohio.  Purchasers must sign a form stating the destination to which the fireworks will be taken.  The only items that can be used in Ohio are designated “trick and novelty” which smoke, pop, and/or sparkle.  In Ohio, use of 1.4G fireworks (firecrackers, bottle rockets, etc.) is illegal.

[Read more…]

It’s hard to witness the current media storm surrounding Brooke Skylar Richardson and not wonder whether she (and/or her family) was aware of Ohio’s Safe Haven Law. In case you are from outside the Southwest Ohio area or live in a vacuum, Richardson is the 18-year-old Carlisle woman who was accused of giving birth to a baby several days after her high school prom, killing it, burning the body and burying it in her backyard. She has been indicted for Aggravated Murder, Involuntary Manslaughter, Endangering Children, Tampering with Evidence, and Abuse of a Corpse. The case is set to go to trial sometime in the next several months.

[Read more…]

On May 11, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in State v. Polk, reversing the decisions of the Franklin Court of Common Pleas and the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  The facts are as follows: A school bus driver found a book bag that was left on the bus.  The driver removed the bag from the bus and turned it over to the school safety officer.  The school had an unwritten policy to search unattended book bags to identify the owners and to ensure that there was no contraband contained in the book bags.  [Read more…]

On May 5, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Darke County Common Pleas Court’s ruling suppressing evidence obtained from a canine sniff of a suspect’s vehicle during a traffic stop.

[Read more…]

On March 22, 2017, the Fifth District Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Perry County Common Pleas Court’s ruling suppressing evidence obtained from the consent to search a suspect’s purse.

[Read more…]