In re D.S.

In 2010, 14-year-old D.S. entered a plea in juvenile court regarding two counts of gross sexual imposition. After D.S. was released from his juvenile commitment, the Licking County Juvenile Court held an evidentiary hearing classifying D.S. as a tier II juvenile offender registrant with a duty to comply with registration requirements every 180 days for up to 20 years. D.S. appealed his registration to the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s order on registration. D.S. appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court arguing that S.B. 10’s requirement that children adjudicated delinquent register as sex offenders is unconstitutional. Specifically, our brief argued that S.B. 10 violates procedural due process guarantees under the federal and Ohio state constitutions because sex offender registration is an adult punishment imposed in the juvenile court without the due process protections afforded adults. Additionally, our brief argued that article I, section 16 of the Ohio Constitution expressly protects the right to reputation, and this right to reputation is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny. S.B. 10’s registration and attendant consequences harm children’s reputations and are not narrowly tailored to achieve S.B. 10’s stated end of public safety. Indeed, extensive public policy research findings demonstrate that burdensome sex offender registration requirements like those found in S.B. 10 are likely to have negative consequences for both child registrants and public safety.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that continuing juvenile sex offender registration requirements beyond age 18 or 21 does not violate a youth's due-process rights, and that there is no double jeopardy when the court conducts a sex offender classification hearing after the child is discharged from treatment.