Opinion ID: 2526547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Constitutional Challenges to S.B. 5

Text: {¶ 38} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, we considered whether Megan's Law remained a civil, regulatory scheme following its amendment by S.B. 5. The issue in Wilson concerned whether an appellate court should apply a civil or criminal standard of review to a trial court decision not to classify an offender as a sexual predator. Adhering to our decisions in Cook and Williams, we held that sex-offender-classification proceedings were not criminal in nature, id. at ¶ 32, notwithstanding any increased burdens and reporting requirements established by S.B. 5. We therefore concluded that courts reviewing the outcome of sexual-predator-classification hearings should apply the civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard and affirm a trial court judgment if it was supported by some competent, credible evidence. Wilson at ¶ 32. {¶ 39} In State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, we addressed retroactivity and ex post facto challenges to R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by S.B. 5. Although we recognized that the law may pose significant and often harsh consequences for offenders, then Justice O'Connor (now Chief Justice), writing for the court, explained that the amendments enacted by S.B. 5 had not transmogrified the remedial statute into a punitive one. Id. at ¶ 32. Further, we acknowledged the General Assembly's clear reaffirmation of an intent to protect the public from sex offenders and concluded that the more burdensome registration requirements    were not born of a desire to punish. Id. at ¶ 35-36. Recognizing that `consequences as drastic as deportation, deprivation of one's livelihood, and termination of financial support have not been considered sufficient to transform an avowedly regulatory measure into a punitive one,' we determined that the additional burdens imposed by S.B. 5 did not amount to punishment. Id. at ¶ 39, quoting Doe v. Pataki (C.A.2, 1997), 120 F.3d 1263, 1279. Accordingly, we held that the amendments enacted by S.B. 5 did not violate the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. Id. at ¶ 40. Furthermore, based on our conclusion that R.C. Chapter 2950 established a civil, remedial regulatory scheme, we rejected Ferguson's related ex post facto challenge. Id. at ¶ 43.