School Resources & Training Institute
Legal and Liability Article Database

For assistance with this database contact us at information@school-training.com or at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index

PATC Article Detail


Title: Security Guard: ìIím Not a Person in Authorityî School District and Courts: ìYou were a Person in AuthorityÖ.î
Author:
ID: LL164
Issue: SU2-3
Issue Date: 2005-05-01
Edition: School
Type: Article

Body: Many people would like others to believe they hold an important position at their workplace. But not a security guard at an Ohio high school.

The security guard, George Thomas, tried to persuade an Ohio appeals court that he was not a ìperson in authorityî at the school and thus should not have been charged with sexual battery under an Ohio statute.

The court did not agree.

Thomas was charged in March 2004 with one count of sexual battery under a subsection of the Ohio sexual battery statute that pertains to offenders who are teachers, administrators, coaches or "other persons in authority" employed by a school. In May 2004, Thomas moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that, as a security guard, he did not meet the definition of ìother person in authorityî under the statute. Two months later, Thomas filed a second motion to dismiss in which he argued that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss following a hearing.

The state appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the statute unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

The Court of Appeals found that the applicable statute was neither overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, in response to Thomasí argument that the statute did not apply to him because he was a security guard, the court said, ìwe find that the plain meaning of the words ëother person in authority,í as used in the statute, can be clearly understood by the average person to include a school security guard. Moreover, applying common sense to the plain meaning of the words ëother person in authorityí provides a defendant with sufficient notice that the act of engaging in sexual conduct with a student while employed as a security guard at the same school constitutes an offense of sexual battery.î

There was no indication in the opinion that Thomas denied having contact with the student, nor was there any indication that the alleged contact was anything but consensual.

The court found that Thomas failed to overcome the statute's presumption in favor of constitutionality and that the statute applied to school security guards based on their job functions and interaction with the students. Furthermore, the court found that, because of their authority, security guards are in a position to coerce students into having sex.

Accordingly, the court reversed the trial courtís ruling and remanded the case for trial.

See Ohio v. Thomas, 2005 Ohio 2631; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2498



Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Citation 3:
Keywords:
Other Information: