Case about GPS tracking by Butler County law enforcement reaches the Ohio Supreme Court.

Case about GPS tracking by Butler County law enforcement reaches the Ohio Supreme Court.

Portage County will host the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in an off-site session on September 24. Students from 11 area high schools will attend the court’s oral arguments, meet the seven justices, and discuss the cases scheduled for consideration.

The court will hear three appeals, including one from a Hamilton man convicted of trafficking drugs after police tracked his activity using a global positioning system (GPS) placed on his van. Summaries of the appeals were released today.

The official session of the court outside Columbus will be held at Ravenna High School. Ravenna students, as well as students from Aurora, Crestwood, Field, James A. Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, Rootstown, Southeast, Streetsboro, Waterloo, and Windham high schools, will participate.

Before the day of oral arguments, students and teachers study curriculum material, including the case summaries. Local attorneys partner with educators at each school to explain Ohio’s judicial system and to go over the materials. On the morning of September 24, students will engage in a question-and-answer session with the justices. After the arguments, students will meet with the case attorneys to talk about the legal issues in the appeals.

The Supreme Court holds off-site sessions twice a year, and this is the first time Portage County has hosted the program. The session gives students the chance to watch the court in action and learn about how the judicial branch works.

Oral arguments in Ravenna will begin at 9 a.m. The arguments will be carried live online at sc.ohio.gov.

Cases for Wednesday, September 24
The court will consider these three cases at the off-site session:

• A Hamilton man was tracked by a GPS placed on his van by a sheriff’s deputy who did not have a warrant in Johnson v. State. The man, who was convicted on drug charges, contends that the use of the GPS was an illegal search, and the evidence gathered from that search cannot be admitted at trial unless the officer acted in good faith. Based on a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision, good faith exceptions can be made only if there is binding precedent from an appellate court for that exception, he asserts.
• A couple bought a car from a dealership in Cuyahoga County in Ganley Chevrolet v. Felix. The agreed-to interest rate was 0 percent, and the contract included a clause stating that any disputes had to be resolved through arbitration. After the interest rate was increased twice, the couple sued and filed a class action. The dealership argues that the class includes people who haven’t suffered actual harm, so the class action shouldn’t have been approved by the court.
• Chen v. Smith involves a surveillance video taken of a Franklin County man who has filed a medical malpractice suit for injuries he says resulted from a back surgery. The doctor maintains that the video does not have to be disclosed to the patient before trial because it is the work product of the attorneys preparing the doctor’s case. He also argues that the patient hasn’t shown good cause why this video should be exempt from the work-product privilege.