City Fights For Drug Exclusion Zone

COURTS SAY DRUG OFFENDER BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The city of Cincinnati asked a federal appeals court Friday to revive its
"drug exclusion zone" in Over-the-Rhine.

The exclusion zone was created in 1996 when City Council passed a law
banning convicted or accused drug offenders from entering the neighborhood.

Two lower courts have thrown out the exclusion zone, saying it punishes
people a second time for the same offense.

Those courts also ruled that the zone infringes on the freedom of
association and unfairly limits a person's right to move freely in a public
area.

But city officials say the zone is a legal and effective way for Cincinnati
to restrict drug trafficking in one of its most crime-ridden neighborhoods.

On Friday, city lawyers asked the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati to overturn the lower court rulings and reinstate the exclusion
zone.

"Governments have not only a right but a duty to remediate areas blighted
by drug use," said Richard Ganulin, an assistant city solicitor. "We have
to balance the government's interests with the rights of the individual."

He said the city enacted the exclusion zone law because Over-the-Rhine
accounts for about 20 percent of drug-related arrests in Cincinnati.

Opponents of the law argue that the seriousness of the drug problem does
not allow the city to trample the constitutional rights of individuals.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law on behalf of two
Cincinnatians, Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France. Mr. Au France was
convicted of a drug-related crime in 1996. Ms. Johnson was arrested for a
drug offense but the charges were dismissed.

The law allows the city to ban anyone arrested for drug crimes, such as Ms.
Johnson, for up to 90 days. Those convicted of drug crimes, such as Mr. Au
France, are banned for a year.

In both cases, their lawyers say, the exclusion zone infringed on their
freedoms to associate and to travel. They say the city has no legal right
to further restrict the freedom of people who already have been punished --
or cleared of wrongdoing -- by the courts.

"The ability to move from place to place is the physical embodiment of
freedom," said Bernard Wong, Mr. Au France's lawyer.

Mr. Wong said Ms. Johnson was unable to care for her grandchildren in
Over-the-Rhine, while Mr. Au France was unable to visit his lawyer's office.

U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott ruled two years ago that those
restrictions were unconstitutional. In a different case last year, the Ohio
Supreme Court ruled that the law violates Ohio's constitution.

The city is attempting to appeal the Ohio Supreme Court ruling to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

One of the three 6th Circuit judges hearing the case, Boyce F. Martin Jr.,
suggested the appeals court may not rule in the case until the U.S. Supreme
Court decides the constitutional questions.

For now, the exclusion zone no longer exists. The city will be unable to
enforce the law unless it wins the appeals.