State v. J.B., 2025-Ohio-3143 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)

The 8th District Ohio Court of Appeals vacated a trial court’s judgment denying a youth’s application for expungement by finding that the trial court lacked authority to order the youth to submit to a drug test. The appellate court offered the following language in support.

“We presume that “the General Assembly acts intentionally and purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.” In re G.M., 2011-Ohio-4090, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St. 590, 960 (1882). The General Assembly could have granted similar bodily access over an applicant for sealing or expungment like it did for a defendant convicted of a felony awaiting sentencing. It chose not to do so. As such, we will not read language into the statute that the General Assembly could have, but did not, include.

. . . .

The General Assembly could have authorized the trial court to order a drug test upon an applicant’s filing for an expungement but chose not to. And “‘[t]here is no authority under any rule of statutory construction to add to, enlarge, supply, expand, extend or improve the provisions of the statute to meet a situation not provided for.'” State v. Bates, 2017-Ohio-4445, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Foster v. Evatt, 144 Ohio St. 65 (1944), paragraph eight of the syllabus.

Since nothing in the expungement and sealing statutes authorizes the trial court to order an applicant to submit to a drug test upon filing an application for expungement, let alone establish a broad blanket policy requiring every applicant to submit to drug testing upon filing an application for sealing or expungement, we find that the trial court erred in ordering J.B. to do just that. As such, J.B.’s first assignment of error is sustained.”