[Former R.C. 2953.56, renumbered by S.B. 288, 134th General Assembly, effective 4/4/2023] Violations of R.C. 2953.31 to 2953.61 not basis to exclude or suppress certain evidence
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Violations of sections 2953.31 to 2953.61 of the Revised Code shall not provide the basis to exclude or suppress any of the following evidence that is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding, delinquent child proceeding, or other legal proceeding:
(A) DNA records collected in the DNA database;
(B) Fingerprints filed for record by the superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation;
(C) Other evidence that was obtained or discovered as the direct or indirect result of divulging or otherwise using the records described in divisions (A) and (B) of this section.
State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4603, 41 N.E.3d 1178. · cites it 2ד{¶ 10} McKenney made monthly payments to the insurance company, and when she applied for sealing of her record on October 15, 1999, she had paid half Expungement results in deletion, making all case records “permanently irretrievable,” R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply…”
State v. Radcliff (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-235, 142 Ohio St. 3d 78. · cites it 2ד2: Though the Tenth District repeatedly referred to the process at issue in this case as “expungement,” we note that expungement is a separate process from sealing a conviction record.”
State v. Singo, 2014-Ohio-5335. · cites it 14דSpecifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. R.S., 2022-Ohio-1108. “Expungement is an entirely separate process governed by R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), “which results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable.”
State v. McCreery, 2012-Ohio-5656. · cites it 11ד{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688. “See R.C. 2953.37(A)(1). R.C. 2953.31(A).6 {¶15} Also, the movant must wait either three years for a felony conviction or one year for a misdemeanor conviction from the date of “final discharge” to apply for sealing.”
State v. T.J.D., 2020-Ohio-3745, 156 N.E.3d 322. “Unlike expungement, which “results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1),” sealing a record of conviction “simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
State v. Bailey, 2015-Ohio-3791. “Expungement results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
C.S. v. M.S., 2021-Ohio-1943. “32; R.C. 2953.37; R.C. 5122.01(R). Courts must remain mindful of this difference in using these terms and applying the remedies as set forth in the applicable statute.”
State v. Luqman, 2012-Ohio-5057. · cites it 2דd of, was convicted of, pleads guilty to, or has pleaded guilty to a violation of division (E) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment and if the conduct that was the basis of the violation no longer would be a violation of division (E) of…”
State v. K.W., 2024-Ohio-1778, 243 N.E.3d 789. “25827, 2014-Ohio-4247 , ¶ 11, referencing former R.C. 2953.37(A)(1) and 2953.38(A)(1). “Sealing, to the contrary, does not require the destruction of the records but limits access to the records to specific persons/entities.”
State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4603, 41 N.E.3d 1178. “{¶ 10} McKenney made monthly payments to the insurance company, and when she applied for sealing of her record on October 15, 1999, she had paid half Expungement results in deletion, making all case records “permanently irretrievable,” R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply…”
State v. Radcliff (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-235, 142 Ohio St. 3d 78. “2: Though the Tenth District repeatedly referred to the process at issue in this case as “expungement,” we note that expungement is a separate process from sealing a conviction record.”
State v. R.S., 2022-Ohio-1108. “Expungement is an entirely separate process governed by R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), “which results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable.”
State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688. “See R.C. 2953.37(A)(1). R.C. 2953.31(A).6 {¶15} Also, the movant must wait either three years for a felony conviction or one year for a misdemeanor conviction from the date of “final discharge” to apply for sealing.”
State v. T.J.D., 2020-Ohio-3745, 156 N.E.3d 322. “Unlike expungement, which “results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1),” sealing a record of conviction “simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(B): 2 cases
State v. Singo, 2014-Ohio-5335. “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. McCreery, 2012-Ohio-5656. “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(C): 2 cases
State v. Singo, 2014-Ohio-5335. “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. McCreery, 2012-Ohio-5656. “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(D)(1)(a): 2 cases
State v. McCreery, 2012-Ohio-5656. “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
State v. Singo, 2014-Ohio-5335. “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.