In a stunning blow to sexual assault victims across the state, the Ohio Supreme Court recently declared a law that made it a felony for a police officer to have sexual contact with minors unconstitutional.
In a 4-3 ruling in a 2007 Cuyahoga case involving sexual contact between a police officer and a 14-year-old boy, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the law. The majority opinion in this ruling stated that it was facially unconstitutional.
The case at the center of the ruling involved Waite Hill police officer Matthew Mole, then aged 35, and a minor, known as J.S. in court documents, who was 14. J.S. was not aware that Mole was a police officer. The two had met through a dating app and arranged to meet. The victim’s mother discovered Mole in the victim’s home, which led to his arrest.
Mole faced two charges. The first charge is found under the unlawful sexual conduct law, which effectively states that people aged 18 or older are expressly prohibited from engaging in sexual acts with a minor between the ages of 13 and 15. It also requires that the offender to have known the minor’s age or acted recklessly in confirming the information. This charge went to a jury and ended in a mistrial.
The second charge was under the sexual battery statute. This prohibits members of certain professions from engaging in sexual acts with a minor two years younger than them. This statue includes police officers. In this case, the bench tried and convicted Mole to two years in prison.
Mole appealed the sexual battery conviction, stating the court neglected to follow the statute closely. He argued that the statute protects minors from sexual advances at the hands of people they know hold authority positions. Mole cited that because he never revealed his profession to J.S., the conviction should have been thrown out of court.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals later overturned the conviction. The state, then, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
And here’s where Ohio’s Supreme Court fails victims.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote for the majority. She states:
“We make clear that even if we have erred in our understanding of the federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, we find that the guarantees of equal protection in the Ohio Constitution independently forbid the disparate treatment of peace officers through a legislative scheme that criminalizes their sexual conduct while removing virtually all of their due-process protections, such that an officer’s conduct can constitute a criminal offense even when that conduct is not found to be illegal by a jury of the officer’s peers.” (page 8 and 9, paragraph 23)
The majority continues their dissection of the case implying that the Ohio Constitution is at the whim of the public. The current codes reflect the outrage of the public when reports of sexual misconduct at the hands of people in authoritarian professions become public. In the opinion of the majority, this is not a constitutional act and puts undue stress on peace officers as they go about their lives as private citizens.
O’Connor concluded:
“Although the state’s interest in maintaining public trust and confidence in peace officers is considerable and undeniably legitimate, R.C. 2907.03(A)(13), as currently worded, is a constitutionally impermissible attempt to further that interest.” (page 25, paragraph 52)
Justice Sharon Kennedy, a former police officer, was direct in her dissenting opinion. She stated that:
“The purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is not to allow courts to repeal laws that they believe are illogical.” (page 43, paragraph 103)
Justice Kennedy concluded the dissenting opinion with:
“Criminalizing sexual conduct between a peace officer and a minor is rationally related to a legitimate state interest because it punishes peace officers for conduct that if discovered would diminish them in the eyes of the community.” (page 44, paragraph 104)
I can’t believe that the Ohio Supreme Court came to this decision. It’s simple — if an adult has sex with a minor, it’s a crime. Rulings like this just prove that justice doesn’t exist.
And in this case? People who have fallen victim to sexual misconduct from Ohio police officers won’t even bother to report it. And why would they? The Ohio Supreme Court isn’t on their side.
Check out the original details of the case, when Mole was originally convicted:
Featured Image: Screenhot Via YouTube Video.
