Court Opinion

ID: 9801444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:49:08.481792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:07.505785
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 24} There were three charges in the underlying cases. One, a traffic offense, is not sealable. One of the reasons traffic offenses are not sealable is that they do not materially affect a person’s life. The other charges, which were dismissed, were possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and those charges are sealable. That makes sense. Drug offenses can materially affect a person’s life, and the General Assembly allows them to be sealed. Today this court determines that a material offense that was dismissed and that is ordinarily sealable cannot be sealed because an immaterial traffic offense cannot be sealed. That doesn’t make sense.
{¶ 25} This case does not merit the attention of this court. We should never have accepted jurisdiction, and we should now dismiss the ease as having been improvidently allowed. Barring that, we ought to affirm the not unreasonable judgment of the court of appeals. I dissent.