COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s law against child enticement is unconstitutional because it is too broadly written and outlaws protected, and sometimes innocent, activity.
Writing for the majority in the 5-2 decision, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger found the law “unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps within its prohibitions a significant amount of constitutionally protected activity.”
The court upheld the judgments of both the trial court and 10th District Court of Appeals in the 2010 case of Jason Romage of Columbus, who was charged with criminal child enticement for offering money to a neighborhood child to carry some boxes to his apartment, according to a release from the court.
Since the ruling by the district court, lawmakers amended the law to include the provision that the solicitation must be for unlawful purposes, a fix Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien calls “imperfect” because it requires police and prosecutors to infer a suspect’s intent.
“It puts an additional burden on law enforcement in trying to protect kids,” he said.
Romage pled not guilty and the trial court agreed with his request to dismiss the charges, arguing that the law was too broad. The state appealed the decision to the appellate court, which upheld the trial court’s decision.
The law states that it is illegal to “knowingly solicit, coax, entice, or lure any child under fourteen years of age to accompany the person in any manner, including entering into any vehicle” without a parent or legal guardian’s permission. Exceptions are made for law enforcement, medics, firefighters, and other emergency personnel.
In her decision, Lanzinger wrote that “a statute intended to promote legitimate goals that can be regularly and improperly applied to prohibit protected expression and activity is unconstitutionally overbroad…The statute fails to require that the prohibited solicitation, coaxing, enticing, or luring occur with the intent to commit any unlawful act.”
He was joined by Justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon Kennedy, and William O’Neill while justices Judith French and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor cast the dissenting votes.
In her dissent, French contended that the court should consider the meaning of the word “solicit” in context. Alongside its companion verbs — ‘coax, entice, or lure’ – a reader can find a more sinister meaning, she wrote. She said the court should have applied the narrower meaning, rather than declaring the entire law unconstitutional.