IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Lea D. Smith, Appellant, Case No. 10-0809 V. On Appeal from the Franklin Vashawn L. McBride, et al., County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District Appellees. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT LEA D. SMITH Brian G. Miller (0063241) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A. 326 South High Street, Suite 500 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 222-1899 Email: b¢mkbgmillerlaw.com COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, LEA D. SMITH Boyd W. Gentry (0071057) Joshua R. Schierloh (0078325) Surdyk Dowd & Turner Co. L.P.A. 1 Prestige Place, Suite 700 Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 ^^^^^ ^F COURT Telephone: (937) 222-2333 ^^^RS-a4i='('U'^T 0^` aHIO__^ Facsimile: (937) 222-1970 0 Email: boentry n sdtlawyers.com j schierlohksdtlawyers. com COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, CLINTON TOWNSHIP AND SGT. TRAVIS D. CARPENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODU CTI ON .........................................................................................................1 II. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT .........................1 A. The Plain Statutory Language and Legislative Intent Behind the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act .................................................:........................ 1 B. Reading Statutes In Pari Materia ......................................................................2 C. Ohio Police Officers Do Not Have Statewide Authority ..................................<5 III. PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS A BRIGHT-LINE STANDARD ....................................6 A. Appellant's Propositions of Law Promote Clarity not Confusion .....................6 B. Appellant's Propositions of Law Promote Fiscal Integrity and ................................................................................7 Conservation of Resources C. Appellees' Arguments Are Misplaced ...............................................................9 IV. APPELLEES' COUNTERARGUMENTS AND SUPPORTING CASES DO NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE CASE SUB JUDICE...........10 A. The Relationship Between Geography, R.C. § 2744, et seq., and R.C. § 11 505.431 .............................. .............................................................................. B. Mutual Aid Agreements Provide a Basis For Extending Immunity ................18 C. Results of Appellant's Position Are Consistent with Statutory Law ...............21 D. Emergency Calls Can Take Place Outside of Jurisdictional Boundaries But Sufficient Criteria for "Professional Obligation" Must be Met ................22 V. APPELLEES' STATEMENT OF "FACTS" ..............................................................23 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................24 PROOF OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................26 i APPENDIX Appendix Page Am.Sub.H.B. No. 176, Section 8, 141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1733 ...................................1 O.R.C. § 1.49(D) ..........................................................................................................39 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953 .............................................................................................40 California Penal Code § 803.1 .....................................................................................45 725 ILCS 5/107-4 ........................................................................................................49 Maryland Criminal Procedure § 2-102 ........................................................................51 O.R.C. § 307.93 ...........................................................................................................55 O.R.C. § 341.12 ...........................................................................................................58 O.R.C. § 341.16 ...........................................................................................................59 O.R.C. § 341.23 ...........................................................................................................60 O.R.C. § 341.32 ...........................................................................................................61 O.R.C. § 753.16 ...........................................................................................................62 O.R.C. § 2931.30 .........................................................................................................64 O.R.C. § 2935.02 .........................................................................................................65 O.R.C. § 2949.12 .........................................................................................................66 O.R.C. § 2949.13 .........................................................................................................67 O.R.C. § 2949.17 .........................................................................................................68 O.R.C. § 719.01 ...........................................................................................................69 O.R.C. § 719.02 ...........................................................................................................71 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Paize CASES: Agnew v. Porter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 18 ..............................................................................16 Brown v. City of Cuyahoga Falls (9`h Dist., 2010), 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3659, 2010 Ohio 4330 ................................................................................................................................21 Burnell v. Dulle (12`h Dist., 2006), 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 7033, 2006-Ohio-7044 .............18 .................1 Cline v. Ohio Bur. OfMotor Vehicles (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 93 ............................ (1946), 146 Ohio St.203 ...............................................................1 Carter v. Division of Water (2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319 ................................2,20,21 Colbert v. Cleveland (July 24, 2008) 8th Dist. No. 88375, 2008-Ohio-3660 ...........................20 Fogle v. Bentleyville (2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 77 ..........................................................:.1,7,8 Hubbell v. City ofXenia (ls` Dist., 1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 535 ................................14,15 Hunsche v. City of Loveland Dist., 1987), 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 5559 ....................................17 Jennings v. Grayczyk (6h Dist., 1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 453, 456 ....................................................15 Lewis v. Bland (9`" (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 1216, 1999-Ohio-296 ............................................20 McGuire v. Lovell (9`" Dist., 1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 33 ................................14,15 McNamara v. City ofRittman Menefee v. Queen City Metro (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 27 ...........................................................7 Parton v. Weilnau (1959), 169 Ohio St.145 ............................................................................23 Perry v. City of East Cleveland (11`h Dist., 1996), 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 507..........11,12,13 Posner v. Dept. of Pub. Safety (10`h Dist., 2000), 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4496 .............20,21 Rambus v. Toledo (e Dist., 2008), 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3590, 2008-Ohio-4283 ..........................................................................................................9,13,14,15 Rutledge v. O'Toole (8th Dist., 2005), 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 1023, 2005-Ohio-1010..................................................................................... ............................. 14,20 Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 222 ............................................................ ......3 iii Ohio App. LEXIS 12626 .................................24 Shaffer v. Thompson (10`h Dist., 1980), 1980 2002), 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 2002 Ohio 222..........15 Shalkhauser v. City of Medina (9"' Dist., 1956), 164 Ohio St.463 ..........................................................4 State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt ( (5`h Dist., 1982), 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 13766 .................................15,16 Stover v. Hamilton STATUTES AND RULES: California Penal Code § 803.1 ...................................................................................................6 725 ILCS 5/107-4 ......................................................................................................................6 Maryland Criminal Procedure § 2-102 ......................................................................................6 O.R.C. § 1.49(D) ........................................................................................................................ 4 O.R.C. § 307.93 .......................................................................................................................13 O.R.C. § 311.29 ..............................................................................................:.............3,6,11,23 O.R.C. § 341.12 .......................................................................................................................13 O.R.C. § 341.16 .......................................................................................................................13 O.R.C. § 341.23 .......................................................................................................................13 O.R.C. § 341.32 .......................................................................................................................13