Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Robert Hendrickson’s opinion Monday in Ehlers v. Thomas was joined by Judges Stephen Powell and Matthew Byrne.
Ehlers, the director of the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office (“MCCO”), faced public records requests from Appellants regarding the deaths of Casey Pitzer and Marvin Napier, whom they believed were part of a coverup. The interactions between Ehlers and Appellants escalated, with threatening emails and confrontational language used by the Appellants, including the sharing of sensitive information and personal photos. The situation culminated in Appellants going to the MCCO to demand records, resulting in a contentious but non-violent encounter.
Ultimately, Ehlers filed for a Civil Stalking Protection Order (CSPO) against Appellants, which was granted for a period of five years. However, the court later determined that the CSPO violated the First Amendment by restricting Appellants’ speech and naming rights. The court found the restrictions to be overbroad and not the least restrictive means to protect Ehlers, a public official, from potential harm or distress.
The court also overturned the weapons restriction, deeming it an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms when it lacked a clear connection to the conduct being addressed.
Similarly, our sister courts have also found that weapons restrictions in a CSPO are inappropriate “where no evidence is presented that the respondent used or threatened to use a deadly weapon to harm the petitioner.”
In this particular case, the communications made by the Appellants to Ehlers raise serious concerns: (1) sharing graphic autopsy photos alongside pictures of Ehler’s family and posing the question “[W]hat if it was your daughter?”; (2) making threats to “expose” Ehlers and her family online, leading to potential public scrutiny and backlash; (3) alleging that actions like Ehlers’ are the reason for civil unrest and lack of respect for law enforcement; and (4) engaging in actions such as locating Ehlers’ personal Facebook page, trying to connect with her, disclosing her address, and claiming that Thomas and his friend, both former marines with the NCIS, would apprehend Casey Pitzer’s supposed killer.
Nevertheless, the court’s decision to prohibit the possession of deadly weapons aimed to prevent any potentially dangerous escalation in the conflict. However, it is evident that this restriction lacks a sufficient connection to the Appellants’ behavior since there is no evidence to suggest that they used or threatened to use a firearm against Ehlers or anyone else involved in the case.
It is debatable whether the court’s criteria should solely depend on the use of a deadly weapon rather than the use of deadly or serious force. Nonetheless, it is agreed that there must be a substantial demonstration of dangerousness before a civil restraining order can justifiably prohibit gun possession.
Matt Miller from Barron, Peck, Bennie & Schlemmer, Co., LPA represented the appellants.
Source link
