Heated third hearing on House Bill 5 over automatic sealing, weapons-under-disability penalties and prosecutorial concerns

The House Judiciary Committee held a third hearing on House Bill 5, focusing on two core, contested elements: expanding automatic or state‑initiated sealing for many misdemeanors and fourth- and fifth-degree felonies, and revising penalties and specifications for weapons-under-disability and repeat violent offenders.

Keller Blackburn, representing the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, testified in opposition. Blackburn told the committee that automatic court‑initiated sealing, as drafted, would conflict with the Ohio Supreme Court’s guidance in Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom because courts must make individualized public‑interest determinations before closing records. He said the proposed automatic process would force prosecutors and courts to review large numbers of records, divert limited staff from active prosecutions and risk sealing records that should remain public. Blackburn also opposed reducing first‑time weapons‑under‑disability penalties from a third‑degree to a fourth‑degree felony and said the bill’s revised automatic‑weapon specification (for suppressors/automatic-fire conversions) would make prosecution harder and public safety riskier unless the current standard of control at the time of the offense is retained.

Alex Sertto of the Buckeye Institute supported parts of the bill, calling the automatic sealing provisions a “modest but significant” step to ease collateral barriers to employment and restore liberty for people with qualifying convictions. Sertto urged procedural fixes to address Bloom while preserving the policy goal of starting an automated sealing process to reduce the number of eligible people who remain unaware of relief options.

Mike Wyman of the Fraternal Order of Police opposed the measure as drafted. Wyman said broad sealing could conceal prior convictions relevant to hiring and public safety and urged that heightened penalties for career offenders be paired with clearer limits on who obtains sealing relief. John Connor (Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office) echoed prosecutorial concerns about workload, cross‑jurisdictional record searches and the risk of improperly sealing convictions that are punishable as violent felonies in other states.

Committee members engaged in extended questioning. Representative Williams (bill sponsor) said he was drafting clarifying amendments — including a plan to retain the current automatic‑weapon specification while creating higher penalties when such a weapon is actually used — and exploring a state‑initiated hearing process that would require the defendant’s participation so that courts would hold a hearing before sealing. Prosecutors said such changes would reduce but not eliminate constitutional and administrative concerns unless funding and staffing were increased to handle higher hearing volume and cross‑jurisdictional research. Supporters and opponents both signaled willingness to negotiate language on constitutionality, defendant notice and prosecutorial review.

No committee vote was taken on HB 5 during this third hearing; witnesses on both sides requested additional drafting changes and potential amendments to resolve Bloom-related and workload concerns.