PD-stock-Ohio-Supreme-Court.jpg

In a 4-3 decision, the court said it was not condoning the behavior of the officer involved in the case. But the section of the sexual battery statute, as written to apply to officers, violated the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

(cleveland.com file)

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A divided Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a decision from Cuyahoga County that struck down a law barring police officers from engaging in sexual conduct with minors.

A 4-3 decision, the ruling by the state's highest court also affirms the appellate decision to overturn a Waite Hill officer's conviction.

That doesn't mean that police may engage in such acts without fear of prosecution. Other laws barring adults, including peace officers, from having sexual conduct with minors remain in place. And in its opinion the court was clear that it was not condoning the officer's behavior.

The state said a provision of the state's sexual battery statute, which bars sexual conduct with a minor when the officer is more than two years older than the minor, violated the equal protection clauses in the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor noted that provisions in the sexual battery statute that apply to a teacher or a minister or a mental health provider are different in that they require an occupational relationship with the minor. The ban for officers, though, required no such relationship and as such was an "arbitrarily disparate treatment of peace officers."

You can read the full opinion below. Mobile users click here.

The original case

The case involved former Waite Hill officer Matthew Mole, then 35, who was convicted in 2012 of sexual battery. Mole was caught engaging in sexual conduct with a 14-year-old boy in Richmond Heights and was tried in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

According to the Supreme Court, Mole was contacted by the boy through an online dating site. The boy portrayed himself as an 18-year-old high school senior, and the two met. The boy's mother caught them engaging in sexual conduct.

At trial, a jury returned a hung verdict on a charge of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, which prohibits contact with a minor ages 13 to 15.

A judge, though, ruled Mole was guilty of sexual battery by virtue of his position as a police officer and sentenced him to two years in prison.

Mole's conviction was overturned by the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals, which ruled the portion of the sexual battery law applied to Mole was unconstitutional. Cuyahoga County prosecutors appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Mole never told the boy he was an officer and that the boy didn't know that fact, according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling

In her opinion upholding the appellate court, O'Connor wrote that the law focuses on "those who use their professional status to take unconscionable advantage of minors, except in the case of peace officers," O'Connor wrote. "Peace officers are liable under the statute even if they did not use their status as peace officers to identify potential victims and abuse them."

The government has an interest in protecting minors from coercion and in keeping officers from abusing their authority, O'Connor wrote. But the section of the sexual battery addressing officers "represents a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit."

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O'Neill concurred with O'Connor's opinion. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.

Dissenting opinions

Justices Judith French and Sharon Kennedy each wrote dissents. Justice Terrence O'Donnell concurred with them.

Kennedy wrote that the state had legitimate reasons for treating officers as a special group, and that the majority erred in that it didn't show the law would be unconstitutional in all cases involving that group.

French, too, wrote that the state had an interest in holding officers to a higher standard.

"The General Assembly determined that the privilege of serving as a peace officer comes with the obligation to adhere to a higher standard of conduct both on and off duty," she wrote.