[Cite as JBK Ventures, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2021-Ohio-2046.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

JBK Ventures, Inc., : 

d.b.a. Headies Hideout, 

 : No. 20AP-184 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, (C.P.C. No. 19CV-9846)

 : 

v. (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 : 

Ohio Department of Public Safety, 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on June 17, 2021 

 

On brief: Ronald B. Noga, for appellant. Argued: Ronald B. 

Noga.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Joseph E. 

Schmansky, for appellee. Argued: Joseph E. Schmansky.

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

LUPER SCHUSTER, J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, JBK Ventures, Inc., d.b.a. Headies Hideout ("JBK 

Ventures"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Public 

Safety ("ODPS"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} R.C. 2927.02 prohibits the "illegal distribution of cigarettes [or] other tobacco 

products." Effective October 17, 2019, the Ohio General Assembly amended this statute to 

raise the minimum legal smoking age from 18 to 21 years ("the amendment"). 2019 

Am.Sub. H.B. No. 166. In December 2019, JBK Ventures, an Ohio corporation that sells 
No. 20AP-184 2 

various products used in the consumption of "legal herb and non-tobacco, non-nicotine 

substances," filed a verified complaint seeking a judgment declaring the amendment to be 

unconstitutional and enjoining ODPS from taking any action to enforce the amendment. 

(Dec. 10, 2019 Compl. at 2.) JBK Ventures alleged that amended R.C. 2927.02 

unconstitutionally criminalizes the sale of its products to persons between 18 and 21 years 

of age. In January 2020, ODPS moved to dismiss the complaint because, based on the facts 

alleged, ODPS's statutory authority does not include an enforcement power over JBK 

Ventures' compliance with R.C. 2927.02. A month later, the trial court granted ODPS's 

motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 3} JBK Ventures timely appeals. 

II. Assignment of Error 

{¶ 4} JBK Ventures assigns the following error for our review: 

The Trial Court erred as a matter of law in misinterpreting the 

limitation of O.R.C. Section 5502.14(B)(1) and (3) as 

eliminating the enforcement powers granted ODPS by O.R.C. 

Section 5502.13 and related Ohio law such that it was not a 

proper Defendant in Appellant's Declaratory Judgment Action. 

III. Discussion 

{¶ 5} JBK Ventures' sole assignment of error alleges the trial court erred in 

dismissing its complaint against ODPS based on its conclusion that because ODPS lacks 

statutory authority to enforce amended R.C. 2927.02 against JBK Ventures' business 

operations as alleged in the complaint, JBK Ventures lacks standing to bring its declaratory 

judgment action against ODPS. This assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 6} Pursuant to R.C. 2721.03, "any person whose rights, status, or other legal 

relations are affected by a * * * statute * * * may have determined any question of 

construction or validity arising under the * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, 

status, or other legal relations under it." The three prerequisites for relief under this statute 

are: (1) a real controversy exists between the parties, (2) the controversy is justiciable in 

character, and (3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties. Mayle 

Bingo Co., LLC v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-760, 2020-Ohio-1087, 

¶ 7. For the purpose of a declaratory judgment action, a "justiciable issue" requires the 

existence of a legal interest or right, and a "real controversy" exists when there is a " 'genuine 
No. 20AP-184 3 

dispute between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality 

to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.' " Festi v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th 

Dist. No. 04AP-1372, 2005-Ohio-3622, ¶ 11; Town Ctrs. Ltd. Partnership v. Ohio State 

Atty. Gen., 10th Dist. No. 99AP-689, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1457 (Apr. 4, 2000), quoting 

Wagner v. Cleveland, 62 Ohio App.3d 8, 13 (8th Dist.1988). In the absence of one or more 

of these prerequisites, a plaintiff cannot bring the action under R.C. 2721.03. Ohioans for 

Concealed Carry, Inc v. Columbus, __Ohio St.3d__, 2020-Ohio-6724, ¶ 30; 

ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, ¶ 19. 

{¶ 7} While a trial court's decision to grant or deny declaratory relief is generally 

considered a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, statutory interpretation 

is a question of law subject to de novo review. Jackson v. Bartec, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 10AP173, 2010-Ohio-5558, ¶ 17, 35; State v. Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, Inc., Ohio Labor 

Council, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 16AP-457, 2017-Ohio-1382, ¶ 12. See Ohio Democratic Party 

v. LaRose, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-432, 2020-Ohio-4778, ¶ 18 (an appellate court reviews a 

trial court's holdings regarding questions of law under a de novo standard). 

{¶ 8} At issue is ODPS's authority to enforce amended R.C. 2927.02 against JBK 

Ventures, and thus whether the parties have "adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy 

and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." An administrative agency 

has no authority beyond the authority given to it by statute. State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 

Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 88 Ohio St.3d 166, 171 (2000). See 

Burger Brewing Co. v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.2d 377, 379 (1975) (authority that is conferred 

by the General Assembly cannot be extended by the administrative agency). "A grant of 

such statutory power may be express or implied, but the implied power is limited to that 

which is reasonably necessary to make the express power effective." Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC 

v. Boggs, 183 Ohio App.3d 511, 2009-Ohio-3551, ¶ 28 (10th Dist.). 

{¶ 9} JBK Ventures primarily relies on R.C. 5502.13 as the basis of ODPS's 

authority to enforce R.C. 2927.02 against it.1 According to JBK Ventures, ODPS's authority 

 

1 JBK Ventures also asserts that ODPS agents have the power, independent of R.C. Chapter 5502, to enforce 

R.C. 2927.02 against it because "even private citizens can initiate" a criminal proceeding under R.C. 

2935.09 by filing an accusation by affidavit. (Appellant's Reply Brief at 6.) Under this reasoning, however, 

JBK Ventures could have brought a declaratory judgment action against a private citizen under the premise 
No. 20AP-184 4 

to enforce R.C. 2927.02 is granted in R.C. 5502.13, and this authority is not limited by R.C. 

5502.14(B)(1) or (3), which details the role of ODPS's "enforcement agents." R.C. 5502.13 

states: 

The department of public safety shall maintain an investigative 

unit in order to conduct investigations and other enforcement 

activity authorized by Chapters 4301., 4303., 5101., 5107., and 

5108. and sections 2903.12, 2903.13, 2903.14, 2907.09, 

2913.46, 2917.11, 2921.13, 2921.31, 2921.32, 2921.33, 2923.12, 

2923.121, 2925.11, 2925.13, 2927.02, and 4507.30 of the 

Revised Code. The director of public safety shall appoint the 

employees of the unit who are necessary, designate the 

activities to be performed by those employees, and prescribe 

their titles and duties. 

{¶ 10} R.C. 5502.14(B)(1) states: 

Any person who is employed by the department of public safety 

and designated by the director of public safety to enforce Title 

XLIII of the Revised Code, the rules adopted under it, and the 

laws and rules regulating the use of supplemental nutrition 

assistance program benefits shall be known as an enforcement 

agent. The employment by the department of public safety and 

the designation by the director of public safety of a person as 

an enforcement agent shall be subject to division (D) of this 

section. An enforcement agent has the authority vested in 

peace officers pursuant to section 2935.03 of the Revised Code 

to keep the peace, to enforce all applicable laws and rules on 

any retail liquor permit premises, or on any other premises of 

public or private property, where a violation of Title XLIII of 

the Revised Code or any rule adopted under it is occurring, and 

to enforce all laws and rules governing the use of supplemental 

nutrition assistance program benefits, women, infants, and 

children’s coupons, electronically transferred benefits, or any 

other access device that is used alone or in conjunction with 

another access device to obtain payments, allotments, benefits, 

money, goods, or other things of value, or that can be used to 

initiate a transfer of funds, pursuant to the supplemental 

nutrition assistance program established under the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or any 

supplemental food program administered by any department 

of this state pursuant to the "Child Nutrition Act of 1966," 80 

 

that the individual could file an accusation by affidavit against JBK Ventures. Because such an approach is 

untenable, we reject it. 
No. 20AP-184 5 

Stat. 885, 42 U.S.C.A. 1786. Enforcement agents, in enforcing 

compliance with the laws and rules described in this division, 

may keep the peace and make arrests for violations of those 

laws and rules. 

{¶ 11} And lastly, R.C. 5502.14(B)(3) states: 

Enforcement agents who are on, immediately adjacent to, or 

across from retail liquor permit premises and who are 

performing investigative duties relating to that premises, 

enforcement agents who are on premises that are not liquor 

permit premises but on which a violation of Title XLIII of the 

Revised Code or any rule adopted under it allegedly is 

occurring, and enforcement agents who view a suspected 

violation of Title XLIII of the Revised Code, of a rule adopted 

under it, or of another law or rule described in division (B)(1) 

of this section have the authority to enforce the laws and rules 

described in division (B)(1) of this section, authority to enforce 

any section in Title XXIX of the Revised Code or any other 

section of the Revised Code listed in section 5502.13 of the 

Revised Code if they witness a violation of the section under 

any of the circumstances described in this division, and 

authority to make arrests for violations of the laws and rules 

described in division (B)(1) of this section and violations of any 

of those sections. 

{¶ 12} We disagree with JBK Ventures' assertion that R.C. 5502.13 authorizes ODPS 

to enforce R.C. 2927.02. R.C. 5502.13 directs ODPS to maintain "an investigative unit in 

order to conduct investigations and other enforcement activity authorized by" various 

chapters and sections of the Revised Code, including R.C. 2927.02. (Emphasis added.) 

This statute further directs ODPS to appoint, and designate the activities of, the 

investigative unit employees. Thus, ODPS's authority, set forth in R.C. 5502.13, to engage 

in enforcement activity as to violations of R.C. 2927.02, is derivative of any such authority 

granted to ODPS in R.C. 2927.02 or any other statutory law referenced in R.C. 5502.13. 

JBK Ventures does not identify, and we do not find, any language in the Revised Code 

chapters and sections referenced in R.C. 5502.13 that authorizes ODPS to enforce the 

requirements of R.C. 2927.02. Because R.C. 5502.13 does not independently authorize 

ODPS to enforce the requirements of R.C. 2927.02, and none exists derivatively from 

another statute referenced in R.C. 5502.13, JBK Ventures' reliance on R.C. 5502.13 is 
No. 20AP-184 6 

unavailing. But this does not end our analysis because ODPS does have the authority to 

enforce R.C. 2927.02, under certain circumstances. 

{¶ 13} Although R.C. 5502.14(B) primarily focuses on the authority of ODPS's 

enforcement agents to enforce laws and rules regulating liquor and supplemental nutrition 

assistance program ("SNAP") benefits, authority granted under this statute extends beyond 

those areas of government regulation. As pertinent here, R.C. 5502.14(B) also grants ODPS 

limited authority to enforce R.C. 2927.02. Pursuant to R.C. 5502.14(B)(1), an ODPS 

enforcement agent "has the authority vested in peace officers pursuant to section 2935.03 

of the Revised Code to keep the peace, to enforce all applicable laws and rules on any retail 

liquor permit premises, or on any other premises of public or private property, where a 

violation of Title XLIII of the Revised Code or any rule adopted under it is occurring." And 

pursuant to R.C. 5502.14(B)(3), ODPS enforcement agents have the "authority to enforce 

any section in Title XXIX of the Revised Code or any other section of the Revised Code listed 

in section 5502.13 of the Revised Code if they witness a violation of the section under any 

of the circumstances described in" R.C. 5502.14(B)(3).2 (Emphasis added.) These 

circumstances occur when an agent is "on, immediately adjacent to, or across from retail 

liquor permit premises and who [is] performing investigative duties relating to that 

premises," is "on premises that are not liquor permit premises but on which a violation of 

Title XLIII of the Revised Code [Liquor] or any rule adopted under it allegedly is occurring," 

or "view[s] a suspected violation of Title XLIII of the Revised Code, of a rule adopted under 

it, or of another law or rule described in" R.C. 5502.14(B)(1). R.C. 5502.14(B)(3). Thus, 

under R.C. 5502.14(B)(1) and (3), ODPS has the authority to enforce R.C. 2927.02, but that 

authority is contingent on the existence of at least one of the factual circumstances specified 

in those divisions. 

{¶ 14} JBK Ventures' complaint does not allege that any one of the contingencies 

specified in R.C. 5502.14(B), necessary for an ODPS enforcement agent to enforce R.C. 

2927.02, is likely to exist as it relates to its business operations. In particular, JBK Ventures 

does not allege that it has a liquor permit or that a business adjacent to, or across from, its 

 

2 The jurisdiction of an enforcement agent under R.C. 5502.14(B) is "concurrent with that of the peace 

officers of the county, township, or municipal corporation in which the violation occurs." R.C. 

5502.14(B)(4). 
No. 20AP-184 7 

premises has a liquor permit, that a liquor violation is likely to be reported to an 

enforcement agent on its premises, or that an enforcement agent on its premises likely will 

observe a liquor violation. In the absence of any of these circumstances, ODPS has no 

authority to enforce R.C. 2927.02 against JBK Ventures, and the parties have no adverse 

legal interests as to that statute. Thus, the complaint fails to allege any real controversy 

between the parties. Consequently, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that, based 

on the facts alleged in the complaint, JBK Ventures lacks standing to bring its declaratory 

judgment action against ODPS. 

{¶ 15} Because the trial court did not err in dismissing JBK Ventures' complaint, we 

overrule its sole assignment of error. 

IV. Disposition 

{¶ 16} Having overruled JBK Ventures' sole assignment of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed. 

SADLER and BEATTY BLUNT, JJ., concur.