Ohio Supreme Court rules that police may get busy with minors

Submitted by EGD on

The competition for "most Ohio thing ever" is going to be strong this year.  Another good candidate with this ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court; the ruling upholds a lower court decision which had invalidated a law prohibiting police from having sex with minors.  Or, as the headline says:

Ohio Court Says Police Are Legally Allowed To Have Sex With Children

LINK

El Jeffe

July 29th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

I get that if something is legal for members of one profession and illegal for members of another profession that would be unconstitutional. Like, florists can rob banks but picture framers can't. Doesn't seem fair.

But... Isn't having sex with minors just plain ol' illegal for everyone?

MGoLawyers please report to this thread, stat!

ijohnb

July 29th, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^

And it is almost always a strict liability offense (offender does not need to know of the actual age of the victim for it to be a crime).  This seriously makes absolutely no sense and has peaked my interest enough to read up on the history of this law/ruling.

In reply to by ijohnb

TSWC

July 29th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

In some states, and Ohio is one of them, the age of consent is under the age of majority. Age of consent in Ohio is 16, with some "near in age" exceptions (it isn't statutory rape when a 17yo sleeps with a 15yo, etc).

EGD

July 29th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

The equal protection principle generally holds that the government cannot arbitrarily treat similarly-situated people differently.  So if you make something illegal for one group but not illegal for other, similarly-situated groups, then that law is arbitrary and violates equal protection.  There are some differences in the analysis when the group being treated differently is what's known as a "suspect classification," such as race or ethnicity--there, the law is subject to higher scrutiny because of the various factors underlying racial or ethnic discirimination.  But an employment category, such as police, would not be a suspect classification.

I guess personally, I don't think police are similarly-situated to most other professions because their badges and guns put them in a position to potentially intimidate or at least have undue influence on minors.  Florists, not so much.  But I'm not from Ohio, so maybe I lack perspective. 

mgoblue0970

July 29th, 2016 at 3:36 PM ^

But there are genuine classifications which require different standards.  Those, "in a position of trust" are held to a higher standard than others in the eye of the law.

EGD

July 29th, 2016 at 5:43 PM ^

Agreed.  Since I have Friday afternoon malaise, however, I will elaborate.

There are actually two standards in play with an equal protection analysis.  One standard deals with the level of judicial scrutiny that applies.  When you are dealing with laws that affect suspect classifications, such as race, gender, or ethnicity, the government has to meet a pretty difficult burden to justify treating, say, men differently from women, or people from one ethnic background differently from everyone else.  If the law doesn't meet that burden then it is invalid.  

Laws that don't discriminate on the basis of suspect classifications, such as this one, are subject to a pretty minimal level of judicial review.  They are presumed valid, and will be upheld so long as they rationally relate to some legimate objective.  

As applied to this case, the law pertains to police officers, who are not a suspect classification., so the court should apply the minimal level of review.  The law clearly serves a legitimate objective in protecting minors from inappropriate sexual conduct.  IMO, prohibiting people in positions of trust, such as police officers, from having relations with minors rationally relates to that objective.  Therefore, it would seem that the law should survive review. 

A critical consideration, which was pointed out in the Washington Post article about this case, was that the prosecution admitted no evidence suggesting that the defendant had used his status as a police officer to gain access to the youth or induce consent to the sexual activity.  That is, the majority's reasoning seemed to be that the defendant just so happened to be a police officer--but that didn't have anything to do with the crime (or if it did, that was not proven).  I think that reasoning is actually pretty persusaive.  It was a 4-3 decision and I am frankly not sure which side I personally agree with.  

MayOhioEatTurds

July 30th, 2016 at 1:09 PM ^

lock you up.  They can kill almost with impunity due to the fact that the prosecutor plays for the same team, not to mention white, suburban support. 

I'm unaware of many other professions where such behavior is not only allowed, but part of the job description.  It makes for an imbalance of power unlike most any other relationship.  It's OK to hold persons of such a "profession" to a different standard when it comes to sex with minors. 

xtramelanin

July 30th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^

there are some bad cop shootings, but most are pretty clean.  remember the first rule of police work: go home at the end of watch.   we had some pretty hair-raising stuff go on out in the field and it plays out a whole lot differently than a video game or an HBO movie.  

that said, i agree it is okay to hold them to a different standard and there is an imbalance of power that must be scrupulously monitored. 

mgoblue0970

August 1st, 2016 at 9:29 AM ^

What the fuck is this?  Your post is a disaster of logic, fact, and deductive reasoning on so many levels.

Police do not have the authority to just lock me up. I can open carry (I'm in Colorado).  

The DA's office is not on the same team as the police.  Quite the contrary actually.

I'm pretty sure sex with minors is not allowed in any profession.  We're talking about classifications here.  Quite the difference.  Reading is fundamental.

Gucci Mane

July 29th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

Guys this is 100% what it means.....age of consent is 16, which means a 16 year old can have sex with a 50 year old legally for each party. Now if a 16 year old has sex with their 22 year old teacher, coach, religious leader, that is illegal. What this law is saying is that police do not count as one of the exceptions. Personally I think they should count because they are in an obvious position of authority.

jblaze

July 29th, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^

This will be deleted, because we are inevitably going to get the police can never do anything wrong. They serve and protect us all... Let's see what happens the next time you need to call 911...

ijohnb

July 29th, 2016 at 12:40 PM ^

think he is going with "This post will have to be deleted because people will say bad things about police but let's see what those punks do the next time they are in danger" but I really have no clue.

Or it could be the exact opposite of that but then the 911 reference at the end is peculiar.  I think that post may have been born of early Friday intoxication.

In reply to by ijohnb

Kapitan Howard

July 29th, 2016 at 12:47 PM ^

I heard that argument before and I always thought it was silly. Either you shouldn't use the service because you think or speak critically of it, or the cops shouldn't do their jobs because you trash talked? That's pretty dumb.