, ,

Class Action Certified Against Cleveland Heights’ Attack on Outside Ownership

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 12, 2024

Non-local homeowners forced to pay extra earn right to seek refunds.

Cleveland, OH – A federal court late yesterday certified a class action lawsuit against the City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, explaining that homeowners who were forced to pay additional annual assessments are entitled to demand refunds of these “Out of County Registration Fees.”

The Order, made by Judge Philip Calabrese of the Northern District of Ohio, confirms class action lawsuits may be maintained against city governments who extort their citizens and businesses in a widespread manner, including through levying assessments beyond property taxes on nonresident homeowners.

In doing so, the Court highlighted the “common issue” of “whether the City’s collection of a $100 fee from persons who own residential rental property in Cleveland Heights but do not reside within Cuyahoga County violates the Constitution or otherwise unjustly enriches the City,” and explained that “without question, the fees at issue present a textbook example for a class action in this regard.”

Specifically, Judge Calabrese certified a class of “All individuals and businesses who own residential rental property in the City of Cleveland Heights and, while residing outside of Cuyahoga County, paid to the City of Cleveland Heights one or more $100 annual out-of-county owner registration fees.”

“Class action litigation is an excellent method for average citizens to even the playing field when fighting back against their corrupt and otherwise indifferent local governments.  This ruling confirms that Ohio cities must be held just as responsible to their citizens and big corporations are to their customers.” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

In Crossroads v. City of Cleveland Heights, the 1851 Center explains how the City’s penalization of nonresident-homeowners violates the United States and Ohio Constitutions:

  • The Equal Protect Clause forbids discrimination against homeowners solely on the basis of their county of residency rather than on the basis of any actual harm they cause to others.
  • The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine prevents cities from extorting Ohioans in response to their exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to private property and right to reside where they wish.
  • Assessments may not be unilaterally imposed by Ohio cities’ attorneys rather than enacted by their city councils.

“Ohioans maintain a fundamental right to own and use private property any way that doesn’t inflict harm on others, and to live where they wish while doing so,” explained Thompson.  “Ohio cities cannot plunder Ohioans for simply carrying on business across county lines.”

Read the District Court’s Class Certification order here.

, ,

Ohio Cities Cannot Gut Search Warrant Requirement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 2, 2023

Ohio Cities Cannot Gut Search Warrant Requirement

North Canton’s crusade for warrants to enter homes based solely on lack of consent from homeowners is unconstitutional.

Stark County, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved to stop attempts by the City of North Canton to obtain boilerplate search warrants green-lighting forced search of local homes.

The action is brought on behalf of Canton-area landlords Eric and Lila Wohlwend and their tenants. The City brought suit against the Wohlwends to obtain a search warrant covering the entirety of their property after they simply declined to consent to such an inspection.

Through its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the 1851 Center explains that the Ohio Constitution requires true “probable cause” of a significant threat to others before courts may issue a search warrant to conduct a sweeping inspection of Ohioans’ homes.

“Ohioans maintain a fundamental right to use their own property in ways that don’t inflict harm others. This right includes the right to exclude public officials from intruding into their homes and rifling through every square foot of their kitchens, bathrooms, and bedrooms for no reason other than ‘just to check things out,’” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “Tenants aren’t second-class citizens without rights: they’re entitled to the same privacy and security from government overreach as those who own their homes, and sham warrants cannot be used to violate their rights any more than entirely warrantless searches.”

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law protected Ohioans’ privacy and property rights by stopping warrantless rental and point-of-sale inspections of homes across Ohio through victories in Baker v. Portsmouth, Pund v. Bedford, and Thompson v. Oakwood.

“A finding of ‘probable cause’ to issue a warrant to rifle through Ohioans’ homes and issue arbitrary punch lists to homeowners, solely because a homeowner does not consent to that search, would entirely undermine the protections provided by the warrant requirement: a fortification against arbitrary, invasive, and harassing government intrusions onto their property, and especially into their homes,” added Thompson.

The case is pending before Judge Farmer in the Court of Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio.

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

, ,

Cleveland Heights Attack on Outside Ownership Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2023

 

Ohio cities may not charge extra assessments to nonresidents who own homes within their limits.

 

Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law this week moved to enjoin the City of Cleveland Heights discriminatory targeting of nonresident homeowners with annual assessment beyond their regular property taxes.

Those who do not pay the assessment are threatened with prosecution, imprisonment, and loss of the right to lease their homes to others.

Through its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the 1851 Center explains that the City’s penalization of nonresident-homeowners violates the United States and Ohio Constitutions:

  • The Equal Protect Clause forbids discrimination against homeowners solely on the basis of their county of residency rather than on the basis of any actual harm they cause to others.
  • The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine prevents cities from extorting Ohioans in response to their exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to private property and right to reside where they wish.
  • Assessments may not be – as was done here – unilaterally imposed by Ohio cities’ attorneys rather than enacted by their city councils.

“Ohioans maintain a fundamental right to own private property, to use it in ways that don’t inflict harm on others, and to live where they wish while owning it and using it,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “Ohio cities cannot poach Ohioans for simply carrying on business across county lines.”

The case is pending before Judge Calabrese in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio.

Read the 1851 Center’s Complaint here.

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

,

Ohio City Forced to Return $3.3 Million in Unconstitutional Fees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 21, 2022

 

Cincinnati charged “alarm fees” to homeowners and businesses protecting themselves with security alarms.

 

Cincinnati, OH – The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas today ordered the City of Cincinnati to return the $3.3 million that it illegally assessed to home and business owners since creating “alarm user registration fees” in 2014.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory on behalf of a certified class of 23,000 home and business owners comes after a five-year legal battle concluded with an Appellate Court holding the City’s “alarm user registration fees” to be unconstitutional double-taxation, and the Ohio Supreme Court declining to overturn that decision.

“The Court’s decision affirms that Ohio taxpayers can and should prevail when cities attempt to swindle them through unlawful taxes, fees, and assessments,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law. “This case should dissuade cities from attempting to impose backdoor fees for either services citizens’ taxes already fund, or no services at all.”

Judge Wende Cross certified classes of home and business owners who paid $50 and $100 annual fees, respectively, and ordered that all fees be refunded by February 21, 2023. Most homeowners will receive between $78 and $312.

Until the First District Court of Appeals ruling in 2021, the City forced homeowners to pay the fees before they were permitted to use home security alarms to defend themselves and their families. The Court found the fees to be “a tax, and the imposition of that tax is unconstitutional,” explaining that “taxpayers, already pay for police protection through their tax dollars,” that “imposing a separate fee or penalty constitutes a form of double taxation,” and that “the assessments have a chilling effect in deterring citizens from utilizing alarm systems to protect themselves, their homes, and their property.”

Read more about the underlying case here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

, ,

Ohio Court: Cities Can’t Charge “Fees” for Calling Police or Home Defense

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 16, 2021

 

Cincinnati tax on those using home security alarms, whether they call the police or not, violates Due Process, is unconstitutional.

 

Cincinnati, OH – An Ohio Appellate Court this week ruled unconstitutional a City of Cincinnati ordinance forbidding use of home security alarms by residents unless they first pay the City an annual $100 fee.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory comes on behalf of local residents Vena Jones-Cox and Drew White, who equipped their homes and business with security alarms to protect themselves, their families, and their property from the City’s rising crime.  The City had fined Mr. White $800 for using a home alarm without first paying the City’s alarm tax.

The unanimous ruling by First District Court of Appeals Judges Winkler, Zayas, and Bock, holds that the City must stop collecting the assessments because they “are a tax, and the imposition of that tax is unconstitutional,” reasoning as follows:

  • “Appellants, like other taxpayers, already pay for police protection through their tax dollars. Imposing a separate fee or penalty constitutes a form of double taxation.”

 

  • “The assessments do not bear a reasonable relationship to the protections, benefits, or opportunities provided by the City to those paying them.”

 

  • “Instead of promoting the public health and welfare, the assessments have a chilling effect in deterring citizens from utilizing alarm systems to protect themselves, their homes, and their property.”

The case now returns to the trial court, where Cincinnati homeowners will certify a class action to recover funds the City unlawfully seized from them since enacting the ordinance in 2014.

“Both the state and federal constitutions forbid Ohio cities from charging ‘user fees’ to homeowners who defend their homes or call the police, whether with a home security alarm or otherwise,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.  “This ruling confirms that Ohioans can prevail when cities attempt to swindle them through improper taxes, fees, and assessments.”

Read the Court’s Order here.

Read the 1851 Center’s Appellate Brief here.

Watch the Oral Argument here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

, ,

Ohio Court: State Mask Mandates Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2021

 

In Ashland County, ”any further attempt to enforce mask restrictions will result in further restraint of any such attempt.”

Ashland, OH – An Ohio Court late Wednesday cast doubt on the lawfulness of the state’s mask mandates, holding that the Governor and Department of Health lack authority to issue such mandates.

The decision by Judge Ronald Forsthoefel of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas comes on behalf of 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s client Cattlemans Restaurant in Savannah, Ohio. The Court concludes that “Plaintiffs should not be subject to any further enforcement action,” over masks due to the following:

  • “R.C. 3701.13 grants no authority to the Director of the Ohio Department of Health to issue or enforce mandatory mask orders since there is no stated or implied authority in R.C. 3701.13 which authorizes any action to prevent the spread of contagious or infections disease.”
  • “The Dine Safe Ohio Order in this case fails to accomplish anything scientifically demonstrable, or otherwise corroborated with empirical data, to prevent the spread of contagious or infectious diseases even if that purpose were authorized by R.C. 3701.13.”
  • Local health departments may not suspend restaurants’ licenses for “immediate danger to public health” arising from mask violations because such danger has not been “factually established nor scientifically demonstrated.”

“The Court’s Order is further evidence that no statute permits Ohio agencies to overregulate all Ohioans over an extended period of time, and that if one did, it would violation the Ohio Constitution’s separation of powers,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “The decision provides a roadmap for elected officials in other counties, who ultimately maintain the power to protect their citizens from the State’s arbitrary and continuous administrative overreach, since virtually all enforcement of these orders is undertaken locally.”

The Court’s reasoning arises while addressing procedural, jurisdictional, and timing issues in a case that ultimately resulted in an injunction forbidding the county’s health department from suspending food service operations licenses in response to restaurant employees not wearing masks.

The Ashland County Health Department had suspended Cattlemans business license for mask violations in July of 2020, but the 1851 Center won a Temporary Restraining Order permitted the Restaurant to open the next week.

Read the Read the Court’s Order here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

, ,

Ohio’s Pandemic Reform Bill: Good and Bad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 24, 2021

 

Ohio General Assembly adopted key 1851 Center recommendations, but other than leveling legal playing field, leaves Governor and ODH unchecked

 

Columbus, OH – In overriding the Ohio Governor’s veto and enacting Senate Bill 22, the Ohio General Assembly codified several 1851 Center recommendations that will benefit Ohioans.

Upon the 1851 Center’s advice and request, the Ohio House of Representatives added the following safeguards to House Bill 90 before rolling that Bill into Senate Bill 22:

  1. Reining in Local Health Department Authority: Past General Assemblies had granted local health department breathtakingly-broad powers. SB22 universally addresses these hidden landmines by (1) limiting “quarantine and isolation” powers to use on only those “who have been medically diagnosed with the disease or have come in direct contact with someone has been medically diagnosed;” and (2) requiring local administrative orders to “apply only to specific persons” and forbidding “any order or regulation that applies to a class of persons.”
  2. Access to Justice in One’s Home County: The Governor and Health Department employed questionable legal tactics to move all legal challenges to pandemic orders to either Franklin County or the Court of Claims in Columbus. SB22 vests Ohioans with the right to challenge pandemic orders in their home counties before their own elected judges.
  3. Access to Legal Representation to Challenge Pandemic Orders: While many state and federal provisions require government to compensate someone who has successfully vindicated his constitutional rights in court, no such provision applied when Ohioans challenged the constitutionality of pandemic orders, leaving many Ohioans (already cut off from their incomes) without the ability to acquire legal representation to protect their rights. SB22 requires the State to pay “reasonable attorneys fees” to those who “successfully challenge an order or rule.”
  4. Preclusion of Shifting Justifications for Administrative Power: After the 1851 Center won several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 3701.13, the State began claiming that its authority actually arose from a different statute. SB22 closes this loophole by applying its limits to all like-kind statutes.
  5. Preclusion of Gamesmanship, Should the General Assembly Act: The original version of the Bill failed to prevent the Governor from simply re-enacting a restriction invalidated by the General Assembly through pretextually labeling the restriction differently. SB22 closes this loophole by forbidding “the reissuance of any restriction contained in the rescinded special or standing order or rule.”
  6. Addition of a “Severability Clause”: SB22 ensures that even if one provision within the Bill is “held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other items of law contain this act.”  This means that the 1851 Center’s recommended policies will endure even if the General Assembly’s other reforms face legal headwinds.

In addition to safeguards recommended and/or written by the 1851 Center, the Bill contains the following limits:

  • A declared “State of Emergency” may not last longer than 90 days, meaning the Governor’s emergency rulemaking authority also expires with 90 days.
  • The General Assembly maintains the power to terminate the “State of Emergency” Declaration after 30 days, thus cutting the Governor’s emergency rulemaking authority to 30 days as well.
  • The General Assembly maintains the power to rescind any pandemic-related administrative rule and order through adopting a resolution doing so.

“It’s unlikely that the General Assembly will ever rescind a rule or order or terminate a state of emergency, and the reform bill leaves the Governor and Ohio Department of Health nearly as unchecked as they have been over the past year, meaning that the legislative branch has essentially passed the buck to the judicial branch to protect Ohioans,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.

“However, we appreciate the General Assembly leveling the playing field for Ohioans who need to vindicate their rights in Ohio courts, and we look forward to carrying on that fight, now that the State’s gamesmanship has been put to rest. We are also pleased to be able to concentrate our efforts on Ohio’s Governor and Department of Health, with local health departments now appropriately disarmed.”

Read the Read the 1851 Center’s February 16, 2021 Recommendations to the House here.

Watch the 1851 Center’s Testimony on the Bill:

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

,

One Year Later, Department of Health – When Under Oath – Still Cannot Justify “Director’s Stay at Home Orders”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 19, 2021
 
Top Ten Takeaways from Government Discovery Responses

Columbus, OH – Recent discovery responses provided by the Ohio Department of Health suggest that even after a full year, the Department remains unable to provide evidence justifying its “Stay at Home Orders.”

On March 22, 2020, the Ohio Department of Health issued its “Director’s Stay at Home Order,” prohibiting “non-essential” businesses and activities. Soon thereafter, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law commenced litigation to challenge the lawfulness of these orders, winning several cases.

In June, the 1851 Center won a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from forbidding the opening of amusement and water parks, including Kalahari Resorts, Cedar Point, and Kings Island. But only recently has the Department of Health responded to the 1851 Center’s Interrogatories (questions required to be responded to under oath during the course of litigation), posited on behalf of Kalahari Resorts.

Those Interrogatory Responses display that the State remains unable to provide evidence supporting it policies, failed to track relevant data, and was at time outright bluffing the public:

  1. Though clearly erroneous, Department of Health (“ODH”) stands by the Ohio Attorney General’s April of 2020 misrepresentation to a federal court that the Orders were justified because “approximately 29 percent of confirmed cases of Covid-19 result in hospitalizations and approximately 4 percent of confirmed cases result in death.”  See Interrogatories 10, 20.
  2. ODH still maintains no evidence that “non-essential” businesses and activities increased the risk of Covid-19 harm, other than what ODH now calls its own “rational speculation;” and the Department cannot identify a single instance of Covid-related harm caused by any Ohio “non-essential business.”  See Interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 11, 28 (“Defendant is unaware of any evidence displaying that Plaintiffs’ operations uniquely increase the harm resulting from Covid-19”).
  3. The only evidence ODH proffers in support of the proposition that the “Stay at Home” Orders “reduced serious harm” is that the number of cases within the State never reached the numbers supplied through then-Director Acton’s self-described “guestimates,” more formally known as “curve-flattening models.”  See Interrogatories 6, 27.
  4. Despite claiming that its regulations were driven by “hospital capacity,” “ICU bed occupancy,” and “hospital staffing capacities,” and a desire to avoid “overwhelming” those capacities, when under oath, ODH concedes that it maintains no metric or benchmark as to what constitutes “overwhelming,” and “no information” as to the capacities of Ohio hospitals. See Interrogatories 22, 25, 31, 32.
  5. Despite being unable to provide any evidence that Ohioans’ “non-essential” businesses or activities ever posed a risk, ODH, the Governor, and the Attorney General continue to deride those Ohioans wishing to open and operate as an “apparent desire to elevate profitability over the health and lives of its employees and patrons.” See Interrogatory 19.
  6. ODH continues to insist with certainty that “the non-essential business restrictions did not cause any public or private health harm or economic harm.”  See Interrogatory 34.
  7. In assessing the risk of Covid-19 to the general public, ODH concedes that it failed to track any data related to the coincidence of hospitalizations or deaths with co-morbidities such as obesity, and relied solely on death certificate date to determine the number of deaths proximately caused by Covid-19. See Interrogatories 37, 38.
  8. The only evidence ODH offers in support of the effectiveness of its mask and curfew policies, given that cases, hospitalizations, and deaths increased after those policies were enacted, is “evidence of reduced cases, hospitalizations, and deaths occurring after mask and curfew orders went into effect,” while conceding elsewhere that “it is not surprising that daily cases [after the mask mandate] continued to increase.”  See Interrogatories 12, 17.
  9. ODH refuses to disclose to Ohioans, when under oath, who writes or reviews its pandemic orders or even the “process by which these orders are drafted and codified,” citing “attorney-client privilege.”  See Interrogatory 18.
  10. The end-date of the pandemic in Ohio will be determined by the Governor alone, rather than by “public health experts.”  See Interrogatory 33.

“Recent discovery responses plainly illustrate that the Governor, Attorney General, and Department of Health – when required to justify their policies under penalty of perjury – are unable to provide any factual evidence that Ohio’s lockdown policies either worked or were justified,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “The lesson is that Ohioans ought to remain skeptical and resistant, rather than reflexively trusting, when public officials insist a restriction on their liberty is necessary to counteract a risk to health or safety.”

Read the State’s Interrogatory Responses here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

Columbus “Admissions Tax” Will be in Court and on Ballot

1851 Center spearheads legal action to protect citizens from municipal “ticket taxes” on arts and entertainment that force funding of private art

Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved to protect Ohioans from special city taxes on tickets to art, theater, movie, sports and other performances.

The non-profit legal center leads a broad coalition business owners and residents seeking to prohibited so-called “ticket taxes” through both a municipal charter amendment and targeted public-interest litigation.

In December 2018, Columbus City Council politicians imposed a five percent “admissions tax,” on art, entertainment, and event tickets effective July 1. The city’s ordinance directs all revenue collected from this tax to the privately-run Greater Columbus Arts Council.

“Funding private art and the operations of private art corporations is neither an essential nor proper function of government,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “It is especially troubling when a city already awash in tax revenue funds purely-private causes and interests by imposing even higher taxes on residents,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.

The charter amendment, drafted by the 1851 Center, will amend the Columbus Charter to provide “No person shall be compelled to pay, directly or indirectly, any tax or fee to gain entrance to any performance, place, association, or event in the City of Columbus.”  Petitions must submit 11,030 valid signatures by July 3 to place the amendment on the November ballot.

The 1851 Center has also served city hall with a taxpayer demand letter on behalf of Columbus taxpayers and businesses who will be subject to the tax. If the City fails to take action within 30 days, the 1851 Center will sue on behalf of these businesses and taxpayers. The demand letter lays out the legal case against taxing some to fund the private art and art corporations of others:

  • As the Supreme Court recently explained in Janus v. AFSCME, forcing citizens to fund the private political and “artistic” speech of a purely private corporation unconstitutionally compels citizens to support objectionable private speech.
  • Taxing citizens to expressly fund a private corporation, with no strings attached, “raises money for a corporation,” which violates Article VIII of the Ohio Constitution.
  • Taxing private expression that government disfavors, while exempting politically-connected special interests, only to use the funds to prop up competing private expression that government favors violates the both equal protection and freedom of expression guarantees.

“It’s inappropriate for government to pick winners and losers by taxing expression it views as too pedestrian, such as concerts, movies, and sports, to prop up sometimes-competing elitist artistic expression,” added Thompson. “People, not politicians or special interests, should assess and determine the value and worth of art.”

Read the 1851 Center’s Taxpayer Demand Letter HERE.

Read the 1851 Center’s proposed Charter Amendment forbidding “Admissions Taxes” HERE.

Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

 

, , , ,

Ohio Cities Cannot Prohibit Use of Security Alarms

Cincinnati’s “alarm tax” violates homeowners’ right to communicate, freedom from double-taxation

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law has moved to invalidate a municipal ordinance that forbids homeowners from protecting themselves with a home security alarm unless they first pay a punitive tax to the City of Cincinnati.

The legal action against the City of Cincinnati is brought on behalf of several homeowners and real estate investors who face $800 fines for simply using home security alarms to protect their homes, rental properties, and vacant investment properties, i.e. calling the police to inform them of potential criminal activity at the property.

Through its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the 1851 Center explains that the City’s ordinance violates the Freedom of Speech by restraining and punishing the truthful reporting of criminal conduct while also impermissibly double-taxing homeowners who already pay for police protection through their general taxes:

The Ohio Constitution protects homeowners’ fundamental right to defend themselves and their houses, and cities cannot force homeowners to pay the City prior to exercising this right, especially when police assistance is not requested.

Speech in defense of oneself and one’s property is just as vital to protect as political speech. Homeowners maintain a First Amendment right to share evidence of criminal conduct on their properties with law enforcement, whether directly or through hiring an alarm company.

Cincinnati’s “alarm fee” is an unconstitutional tax because the City spends it on anything it likes, annually collects more than twice what it spends on security alarm issues, and the fees are imposed irrespective of whether homeowners with alarms actually use more city services.

“Ohio cities’ new practice of forcing homeowners to pay a fee for the privilege of protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a security alarm is not just an unconstitutional tax, but an outright scam, taxing those who report crime and forcing taxpayers to pay twice for police protection,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “Government should encourage self-defense and crime-reporting, rather than prohibiting such socially beneficial conduct.”

The City of Cincinnati demands $100 up-front before one may use a security alarm, and those who protect themselves with security alarms without paying the fee are fined up to $800. This prohibition applies even to “local alarms” that do not involve police.

The case is pending before Judge Michael Barrett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. However, the 1851 Center has moved to remand the case to state court

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction HERE.