State v. Burnett
755 N.E.2d 857, 93 Ohio St. 3d 419 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that bans individuals convicted of certain drug offenses from designated public areas violates the fundamental right to intrastate travel under the Fourteenth Amendment if it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Additionally, such an ordinance is invalid under the Ohio Constitution if it imposes a criminal penalty for a state statutory violation that is not authorized by the state legislature.
Facts:
- The city of Cincinnati passed an ordinance creating 'drug-exclusion zones' in areas with high incidences of drug-related activity.
- The ordinance subjected a person to a 90-day exclusion from all such zones upon arrest for a designated drug offense within a zone, and a one-year exclusion upon conviction.
- An excluded person found within a zone during the exclusion period could be arrested for criminal trespass.
- On February 7, 1998, George Burnett was arrested for a designated drug offense within the 'Over the Rhine' drug-exclusion zone.
- Upon his arrest, an officer served Burnett with a 90-day exclusion notice.
- Following his conviction for the drug offense, the city served Burnett with a one-year exclusion notice.
- On June 23, 1998, Burnett was found present within the Over the Rhine drug-exclusion zone and was arrested for criminal trespass.
Procedural Posture:
- George Burnett was charged with criminal trespass in the trial court.
- Burnett filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Cincinnati's drug-exclusion ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss and convicted Burnett as charged.
- Burnett, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the First District Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio then granted a discretionary appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a municipal ordinance that excludes individuals convicted of certain drug offenses from designated 'drug-exclusion zones' for one year constitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Moyer, C.J.
No, the ordinance is not constitutional because it violates the fundamental right to travel under the U.S. Constitution and exceeds the city's authority under the Ohio Constitution. The court recognized a fundamental right to intrastate travel protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the city's interest in combating drug activity is compelling, the ordinance is not narrowly tailored because it sweeps up a substantial amount of innocent and constitutionally protected conduct, such as visiting family, attending church, or seeking medical care, punishing mere presence without any illegal intent. Furthermore, the ordinance conflicts with state law in violation of the Ohio Constitution's Home Rule provision by unilaterally adding a criminal penalty—banishment—to a state drug offense, a power reserved for the state legislature.
Concurring - Cook, J.
No, the ordinance is not constitutional, but the decision should rest solely on state constitutional grounds. While I agree with the judgment to reverse Burnett's conviction, the majority should not have reached the complex federal constitutional question of a right to intrastate travel. The ordinance clearly violates the Ohio Constitution because it allows the city to add a criminal penalty to a state crime, which exceeds its local self-government powers. This state-law holding is sufficient to resolve the case, and principles of judicial restraint caution against creating new federal constitutional law regarding substantive due process and the right to travel, especially when its source and scope are unsettled in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally recognizing a fundamental right to intrastate travel in Ohio, protected under the U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause and subject to strict scrutiny. By striking down the drug-exclusion ordinance, the court limited the power of municipalities to use broad banishment-style laws to fight crime, emphasizing that such measures must be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on innocent activities. The ruling serves as a precedent against overly broad place-based restrictions and reinforces the constitutional limits on a city's power to legislate punishments for state crimes, thereby impacting how local governments can address issues like drug trafficking and loitering.
