Patricia Johnson Michael Au France v. City of Cincinnati
310 F.3d 484 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that excludes individuals from an entire neighborhood based on a drug-related arrest or conviction, without any individualized assessment of dangerousness, is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and thus unconstitutionally infringes upon the fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- The City of Cincinnati enacted an ordinance creating 'drug-exclusion zones' in neighborhoods with a significantly higher incidence of drug-related crime.
- The ordinance automatically excluded any individual for 90 days if arrested for a drug offense within a zone, and for one year if convicted.
- The City designated the Over the Rhine neighborhood, a mixed residential and commercial area, as a drug-exclusion zone.
- Patricia Johnson was arrested for a marijuana trafficking offense in Over the Rhine.
- At the time of her arrest, Johnson did not reside in Over the Rhine, but she regularly cared for her five minor grandchildren who lived there with their mother, which included taking two of them to and from school.
- Following her arrest, Johnson received an exclusion notice prohibiting her from entering Over the Rhine for 90 days.
- Michael Au France, a homeless man, was arrested and convicted multiple times for drug offenses in Over the Rhine, leading to repeated exclusions from the neighborhood.
- Au France regularly sought essential services such as food, clothing, and shelter from social service organizations located in Over the Rhine, and his attorney's office was also located there.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court against the City of Cincinnati.
- The plaintiffs alleged the City's drug-exclusion ordinance was unconstitutional and sought a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the ordinance was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied.
- The district court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance and awarded the plaintiffs $38,500 in attorney fees.
- The City of Cincinnati, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that excludes individuals from a designated 'drug-exclusion zone' based solely on an arrest for or conviction of a drug offense within that zone, without an individualized hearing, unconstitutionally infringe upon fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr.
Yes, the municipal ordinance unconstitutionally infringes upon fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association. The court holds that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to 'travel locally through public spaces and roadways,' which is rooted in the nation's history and is a practical necessity for daily life. The ordinance also infringes on fundamental rights of association, specifically Johnson's right as a grandparent to participate in the upbringing of her grandchildren and Au France's right to access his attorney. Because the ordinance implicates fundamental rights, it is subject to strict scrutiny. While the City has a compelling interest in combating drug crime, the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. It is overbroad, banning all travel within the zone for any purpose, thus affecting wholly innocent and socially beneficial conduct. Crucially, the ordinance lacks any individualized hearing to determine if an excluded person actually poses a threat of recidivism, and the prior version of the ordinance continued to exclude individuals even after their charges were dropped. The variance procedure is insufficient as it fails to protect the rights of individuals like the plaintiffs who do not live or work in the zone.
Dissenting - Gilman
No, the municipal ordinance does not unconstitutionally infringe upon fundamental rights and should be upheld. The dissent argues that prior Sixth Circuit precedent, specifically Wardwell v. Board of Education, established that there is no fundamental right to intrastate travel, and therefore the ordinance should be subject only to rational basis review. The majority errs by declaring a new fundamental right. Furthermore, the dissent contends that the freedom of intimate association does not extend to a non-resident grandparent's desire to visit grandchildren, distinguishing Supreme Court precedent that focused on cohabitation. Similarly, the attorney-client relationship is not the type of intimate bond protected as a fundamental right. Because no fundamental rights are implicated, the ordinance need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The ordinance easily meets this standard, as excluding individuals with a history of drug offenses from a high-crime area is a rational method of attempting to improve public safety.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for expressly recognizing a fundamental right to intrastate travel under the substantive due process clause within the Sixth Circuit, a question previously unsettled. By applying strict scrutiny, the court sets a high bar for municipalities seeking to use geographic exclusion zones as a crime-fighting tool, requiring them to be narrowly tailored and to include procedural safeguards like individualized hearings. The ruling also broadens the recognized scope of the fundamental right of association to protect a grandparent's active role in child-rearing and a client's access to their attorney, reinforcing that such regulations cannot sweep so broadly as to interfere with these protected relationships.
