|
|
| No Review for Drug Dealer Policy |
|
Posted by FoM on April 29, 2002 at 10:19:11 PT By Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press 
The Supreme Court refused Monday to enter a constitutional debate over the policy of banishing drug dealers or other criminals from neighborhoods with severe drug and crime problems.The court did not comment in rejecting an appeal from authorities in Cincinnati. The city tried to ban drug criminals from the crime- and drug-plagued Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, but the policy was declared unconstitutional in state and federal courts. The issue may return to the high court soon, however. Challenges to "drug-free zones" are still working their way through lower courts. Cincinnati's 1996 law drew figurative lines around drug-infested neighborhoods. People arrested or convicted on drug charges could be banned from the outlined neighborhood for a year or more, or face arrest if they were caught in their old haunts. The city claims the policy targeted repeat criminals and helped cut down on drug crime. Cincinnati stopped enforcing the law after a federal court declared it unconstitutional in 2000. Last year, the state's highest court issued a similar ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court found that banishing someone violated a constitutionally protected right to travel. The court also said banishment amounts to double punishment, since it imposed an additional restriction on a convict beyond his regular sentence or fine. "A person subject to the exclusion ordinance may not enter a drug-exclusion zone to speak with counsel, to visit family, to attend church, to receive emergency medical care, to go to a grocery store, or just stand on a street corner and look at a blue sky," Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer wrote. The case involved George Burnett, convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia in 1998. Burnett was banished from Over-the-Rhine for 90 days after his arrest, and for a year following his conviction. He was arrested for trespassing in the exclusion zone a few months after his conviction. "Temporary exclusion from a neighborhood is not a punitive criminal-type physical incarceration," city lawyers wrote in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. Cincinnati's law was based on one in Portland, Oregon. A state court upheld the Portland ban. "Drug crime is rampant in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati, recidivism contributes to that rampant drug crime, and a comparable exclusion zone ordinance in Portland, Oregon was very successful," Cincinnati's lawyers wrote. Over-the-Rhine is a poor, mostly black neighborhood near Cincinnati's downtown business district. The neighborhood erupted in three nights of rioting last year after a white police officer fatally shot an unarmed black man. Dozens of people were injured and more than 800 were arrested. The case is Ohio v. Burnett, 01-1235. Source: Associated Press Related Article: Drug-Zone Law Fails Court Test Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 09, 2003 at 12:12:17 PT |
| Supreme Court Rejects Drug-Free Neighborhood Law Monday, June 9, 2003 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that struck down a Cincinnati law that sought to create a "drug-exclusion zone" by banning anyone arrested or convicted of certain drug offenses from a high-crime neighborhood. Without comment, the high court rejected an appeal by the city defending the 1996 ordinance. The justices declined to review a U.S. appeals court ruling that the law violated the constitutional right to freedom of association and movement. The ordinance targeted the "Over the Rhine" neighborhood near Cincinnati's central business district. Anyone arrested for certain drug crimes could be banned from the streets, sidewalks or other public areas for 90 days while those convicted could be barred for one year. The measure had been challenged by Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France. Johnson was arrested in 1998, but never indicted, on a marijuana trafficking offense. As a result, she was barred for 90 days from entering the neighborhood where one of her children and five of her grandchildren lived. Au France, a homeless man, was convicted on various drug-related crimes, and was barred for approximately four years. As a result, he could not visit his attorney's office or seek shelter from social service organizations in the neighborhood. A federal judge and then a federal appeals court struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court also struck it down, citing state law grounds. The city stopped enforcing the measure in 2000. Cincinnati said the law was modeled after a similar ordinance in Portland, Oregon. The city said the law had been adopted in an effort to fight rampant drug crime in the neighborhood. It marked the second time the Supreme Court has rejected the city's appeal. The justices last year let stand the ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |