Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant D.S.
Brooke M. Burns
Marsha Levick
Michael DeWine
Eric E. Murphy
Michael J. Hendershot
SummaryOriginal

Summary

SB. 10 violates procedural due process and violates children's due course right to reputation, expressly protected by the Ohio Constitution.

Share Resource

2014 | State Juristiction

Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant D.S.

Keywords delinquent; sex offenses; minors; registration; juvenile sex offenders; due process; sex offender registration
image

Summary of Argument

Amici respectfully submit this brief for the purpose of expanding upon Appellant's Third Proposition Of Law, "The Imposition of a Punitive Sanction That Extends Beyond the Age Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions." Accordingly, we ask that this Court hold S.B. 10 unconstitutional as applied to children.

With the adoption of 2007 Am. Sub. Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10), Ohio now registers many children as sex offenders for longer than these children will have even been alive. Some children as young as fourteen years old with no previous delinquent offenses are subject to twenty-year registration with attendant onerous reporting requirements. This registration scheme violates state and federal constitutional due process protections because it is inconsistent with the special protections the United States Supreme Court has held must be afforded children. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010); J.D.B. v North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011); Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).

Ohio has long treated children differently than adults and prioritized rehabilitation over punishment. Towards that end, Ohio shields children from adult consequences, such as criminal stigma, so that children may become productive members of society. Because of the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile court, juvenile offenders are not offered the full panoply of procedural rights that adult criminal defendants receive. They lack, for example, the right to trial by jury. Yet D.S. faces serious adult consequences, including decades of registration and a risk of lifelong stigmatization. As a result, D.S., and others in his position, receive "the worst of both worlds" In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 n.23 (1967).

This Court has never addressed the question of whether sex offender registration violates a child's fundamental reputation right as protected by the Due Course clause of the Ohio Constitution. 1 In light of the protective approach courts must take when applying constitutional standards to children, Roper, 543 U.S. at 551; Graham, 560 U.S. at 48; JD.B., 131 S. Ct. at 2394; Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2455, the explicit reference to reputation in the Ohio Constitution's Due Course clause, which is Ohio's analog to the federal due process clause, and the historical treatment of reputation in Ohio and other states, children have a fundamental right to reputation. Thus, the registration requirements can only stand if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. They do not meet this standard. Indeed, research shows that registration of juvenile offenders neither improves public safety nor rehabilitates youth.

The 2006 federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587-the impetus for S.B. 10-provides that state courts may evaluate the constitutionality of their individual registration schemes. 42 U.S.C. § 16925. Upon determination that the scheme is in violation of constitutional law, it may be stricken without jeopardizing the state's federal financial benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 16925. Requiring D.S. and other similarly situated children to register for up to twenty years violates both the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Amici submit this brief to support Appellant’s argument that the imposition of punitive sanctions extending beyond the juvenile court’s age jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. This brief argues that Ohio’s sex offender registration scheme, as codified in S.B. 10, is unconstitutional as applied to children, as it violates their due process rights under both the state and federal constitutions.

The registration scheme in S.B. 10 requires many children to register as sex offenders for longer periods than they have been alive. The requirement that children as young as fourteen years old with no prior offenses register for twenty years, coupled with the accompanying onerous reporting requirements, violates due process protections. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that children require special constitutional protections, as their developmental immaturity and vulnerability render them uniquely susceptible to abuse by the state. The registration scheme in S.B. 10 fails to meet this standard, as it subjects children to adult consequences despite the juvenile court’s long-held prioritization of rehabilitation over punishment.

Ohio has historically shielded children from adult consequences, including criminal stigma, to encourage their rehabilitation and integration into society. This has manifested in a juvenile court system designed to prioritize rehabilitation and to protect children from the harsh consequences imposed upon adults. As a result, children are afforded fewer procedural rights than adult criminal defendants, including the right to a jury trial. However, under S.B. 10, juveniles like D.S. face the significant, adult consequence of decades-long registration, with its associated stigma and lifelong reporting requirements. This creates a situation where children face "the worst of both worlds," with the burden of adult consequences without the procedural protections afforded to adults.

The registration scheme in S.B. 10 violates D.S.’s fundamental right to reputation as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Courts must recognize the unique need for constitutional protection of children, particularly when evaluating fundamental rights such as reputation. The Ohio Constitution explicitly references the right to reputation, which the Court has never addressed in the context of sex offender registration. The historical treatment of reputation in Ohio and other states provides a strong foundation for recognizing this fundamental right for children. Given these factors, the registration requirements of S.B. 10 can only be upheld if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. However, research indicates that juvenile offender registration neither enhances public safety nor promotes rehabilitation, failing to meet this requirement.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 allows states to strike unconstitutional provisions from their registration schemes without jeopardizing federal financial benefits. Requiring D.S. and other similarly situated children to register for up to twenty years violates both the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that Ohio's Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10) is unconstitutional as applied to children, specifically concerning sex offender registration requirements. The brief focuses on the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions, arguing that the extended registration periods, which can exceed a child's lifespan, violate the constitutional protections afforded to minors.

The Imposition of a Punitive Sanction That Extends Beyond the Age Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. S.B. 10 mandates registration for sex offenders, including minors, for extended periods, potentially lasting for decades. This, the brief argues, violates the Due Process Clause by imposing an adult-level consequence on a child, subjecting them to lifelong stigma and potential ramifications despite the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile justice system.

The brief highlights the Supreme Court's recognition of the unique vulnerability of children, citing cases like Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama, which emphasize the need for heightened constitutional protections for minors. This includes the right to reputation, a concept the brief argues is explicitly protected by the Ohio Constitution's Due Course clause, which serves as Ohio's equivalent to the federal Due Process Clause.

The brief also argues that the state's interest in public safety, often cited as justification for sex offender registration, is not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the significant harm inflicted on children through such extended registration.

The brief concludes by advocating for a holding that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional as applied to children, citing the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which allows states to evaluate the constitutionality of their registration schemes and potentially modify them without jeopardizing federal funding.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This brief explains why Ohio's law requiring some children to register as sex offenders for 20 years, even though they are only 14 years old, is unconstitutional.

This brief argues that Ohio's law requiring some children to register as sex offenders for 20 years, even though they are only 14 years old, is unconstitutional. This law, known as S.B. 10, violates the rights of children because it contradicts the special protections that the Supreme Court has determined children are entitled to.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that children are different from adults in the legal system, and they should be given special protections. The court has also ruled that children have the right to be rehabilitated and avoid being stigmatized as criminals.

However, S.B. 10 forces children to register as sex offenders for a long period of time, which can lead to them being stigmatized and facing serious consequences for decades. Research has shown that registering juvenile offenders as sex offenders does not make communities safer, nor does it help children to be rehabilitated. Federal law allows states to evaluate the constitutionality of their sex offender registration laws. This means that Ohio can change S.B. 10 without losing federal funding.

In conclusion, requiring children to register as sex offenders for up to twenty years violates both the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This document is about a law called S.B. 10, a law in Ohio that requires some children to register as sex offenders for 20 years, even though they are only 14 years old. This brief states tha it is unconstitutional.

The document says that S.B. 10 is unfair because it makes kids stay on the sex offender registry for too long. Some kids might be on the list for 20 years, even if they did something wrong when they were very young, like 14 years old. The document says this is unfair because it makes kids feel bad about themselves and makes it hard for them to have a good life later.

The document says that the law is unfair because it makes kids seem bad and puts them on a list with adults who have done bad things. It says that the law is against the rules that say kids should be treated differently than grown-ups. The document says that the law is wrong because it doesn’t give kids a chance to change their behavior and get better.

The document says that there are rules that say that kids should be treated differently than grown-ups, especially when they have done something wrong. These rules say that kids should have a chance to change and get better, and that they shouldn’t be punished as harshly as grown-ups.

The document wants the court to say that the law is unfair and that it is wrong to make kids stay on the list for so long. The document says that the court should decide that the law is unfair because it doesn’t give kids a fair chance to have a good life.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant D.S., In re D.S., No. 14-0607 (Ohio Sept. 15, 2014).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights