Ohio's smoke-free law update

As really could’ve been expected, Ohio’s smoking ban law is in court—and not just one, but three altogether—for the time-being, though, all at a state trial court level. (Article)

The smoke-free legislation passed a popular vote last November, but was faced with rumblings even before that.

The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders filed a complaint a month after the law passed, appearing before Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson yesterday. Buckeye’s premise is that “the right to make decisions relevant to your own property is an inherent, fundamental right,” and the new law violates Ohio privacy and property rights.

Counsel for the American Cancer Society and the state told Nelson that “government has the power to impose rules that may limit some individual rights for the welfare of society.” (Article)

Meanwhile, up in Franklin County, the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association filed a similar suit two weeks ago against the Ohio Health Department, the American Cancer Society filing its own suit a week later also against the Health Department.

The law, not withstanding, is set to become effective May 1st., with Judge Nelson saying he’ll make his decision as to whether to grant an injunction blocking its enforcement by then.



Buckeye Liquor v. Ohio Dept. Health (Hamilton Cnty., Case A-0610614)

Ohio Licensed Beverage v. Ohio Dept. Health (Franklin Cnty., Case 07-CV-005103)
American Cancer Society v. Ohio Dept. Health (Franklin Cnty., Case 07-CV-005306)
enter case number here

Ohio corrections legislation

In the closing days of March, a bill was introduced in the Ohio House that would modify state sentencing procedures with respect to post-release controls and other related aspects, including those to the Adult Parole Authority, Dept. of Rehabilitation & Corrections, and the Department of Youth Services.

The bill would also repeal Ohio Revised Code §2967.11, provisions under which so-called “bad time” extensions of an inmate’s sentence for infractions while in prison having been found unconstitutional by State ex rel. Bray v. Russell(2000).

Ohio Supreme Court holds untolled time served on multiple counts must be triple-counted toward statutory time limit

When a criminal defendant is held in jail in lieu of bond on multiple charges arising from the same incident and having a common litigation history, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, all days of untolled time served on any of those charges must be triple-counted toward the 270-day statutory time limit for bringing that person to trial, even though some of those charges have to be prosecuted in different courts.

State v. Parker, 2007 Ohio 1534