Criminal justice bills working through Ohio House
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) -- The Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee heard several bills on Wednesday, including two new ones.
House Bill 460: the “Getting Rehabilitated Ohioans Working Act”
House Bill 460, or the GROW Act was introduced by Representatives Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) and Brett Hillyer (R- Uhrichsville).
“There’s just a million good reasons to do this,” Seitz said.
If enacted, the bill would seal certain criminal records automatically. Right now, Ohio law allows most people to be eligible for record sealing if they have stayed out of trouble for six years since they have been convicted and finished their sentence; for most misdemeanors, it is three years.
“What we’re trying to do with this bill is make the process more streamlined and easier,” Seitz said.
Offenses like a felony offense of violence, a sexually oriented offense, or 1st or 2nd-degree felonies would not be eligible.
If this bill is enacted, eligible Ohioans would be automatically enrolled, and both the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and counties would be responsible for creating a rolling monthly list. But prosecutors would still have the ability to object in these cases.
Seitz said the bill requires the sealing to go back to the earliest possible time. Seitz said in some cases, that may be a lot of work for little payoff since, “many of those folks are probably either dead, retired or moved out of state.”
Depending on the cost, Seitz said he is considering an amendment to create something like a 25-year look-back period instead.
“If the cost ends up being achievable without a loopback period, we will do it that way,” Seitz said.
Seitz said more than one million, or 10%, of Ohioans are currently eligible to get their record sealed. He said that could be an easy fix to a workforce problem.
“When a million Ohioans are suffering from some prior conviction that could be wiped clean with a sealing, we think we can significantly increase the number of people in the workforce,” he said.
The bill would also protect employers -- since a sealed record does not have to be disclosed on a job application, the legislation would ensure that an employer does not face liability for negligent hiring or supervision.
“We’ve got to do a better of getting people to work,” Seitz said.
But some state agencies would still be able to look at the records, like the ones that license teachers or nurses.
“But for most employers, it will be like it didn’t happen,” Seitz said. “They won’t know about it, and you won’t be required to tell them about it either.”
Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee say they applaud what this bill does but some say some more work is needed, specifically in the section about employer immunity.
“I think it is broad, it is vague, and it opens the door for some creative lawyer to apply this employer immunity to a situation other than intended,” Rep. Richard Brown (D-Canal Winchester) said.
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Association said it is reviewing the bill, but prosecutors do not have the time or resources to review such a large number of cases.
Similar legislation has been enacted in several other states including Michigan.
House Bill 37: Increasing Penalties for OVI’s
House Bill 37, sponsored by Reps. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Mark Johnson (R- Chillicothe), would increase penalties for Operating a Vehicle under the Influence (OVI) convictions.
“We want to bring justice to victims,” Miller said.
The original text of the bill only focused on increasing the penalty for OVI charges. But Miller said as the bill has moved through the committee process, they have noticed that increased penalties do not always deter repeat offenses.
“What are we really doing to address drunk driving at even the lower levels, to deter folks from maybe even their second offense before they get into their third, fourth, fifth,” Miller said.
So now, Miller said a new version looks into things like requiring ignition interlocks, which are devices that are like a breathalyzer in your car, to prevent someone from starting their car under the influence.
“We know there is a significant number of repeat OVI offenders and that’s what we are trying to get at,” he said.
Miller said he hopes to have someone in committee to talk about the interlocks within the next few weeks, and a vote out of committee soon after.
House Bill 295: the “Innocent Act”
House Bill 295 is sponsored by Rep. Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge Township). The bill would penalize both the underage user and the website if a minor recklessly viewed material considered “obscene or harmful to juveniles.”
House Bill 295 would create misdemeanor charges, at different levels, for a distributor of the content if it does not verify someone’s age, and for a minor who attempts to access the online content by providing false identifying information.
Demetriou said this proposed law brings already existing laws up to date with the internet. For example, he equated this bill with 18+ sections in video stores that require age verification.
The bill spells out a few acceptable methods for age verification, but the burden would fall on the distributor. Demetriou said right now, content that is obscene and harmful to juveniles is already clearly defined in law, so the sites should not have difficulty knowing whether they fall under that category.
“We are just assuming they already have already been operating under this context, this law, on other platforms and retail space so the same thing would apply to the internet, essentially,” he said.
Other similar bills have been introduced at the statehouse to achieve the same or similar.
House Bill 196, sponsored by Reps. Josh William (R-Sylvania) and Seitz was also heard in committee. The bill changes the maximum periods of community control sanctions.