Mr. Strole was charged with violating Lockland, Ohio Ordinance No. 642.11. That ordinance provides:
No person shall:
(1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise improperly tamper with . . .
A. The property of another;
So, what exactly did hardened criminal Strole do? He took a can of orange spray paint and . . . painted circles around potholes throughout Lockland. Mr. Strole was frustrated with how long it was taking the public works department to fill in the potholes. Imagine how frustrated he was when he got arrested.
In any event, the matter went all the way to a jury trial. And on November 19, the jury acquitted Mr. Strole. This was the least surprising result since Aaron Judge unanimously won this year's AL MVP award. I wasn't there for the trial, but I would have framed it as "potholes v. Strole." I can hear the argument now, "ladies and gentlemen, whose side are you on – Mr. Strole's or potholes?" Seems like a no brainer from my perspective.
The question that arises, is why did Lockland take this to the mat? I have a theory. I don't like to admit this, but when I used to coach my kids I occasionally "worked the refs." It's not something I'm proud of. But I learned from that experience that refs got the most mad when they clearly blew a call. That always seemed to draw the most severe reaction. The ref couldn't defend the blown call, so they took it out on the messenger.
I think Lockland was a little like the ref here. The city can't defend its inattention to potholes, so why not take it out on poor Mr. Strole? I can't think of any other justification. I suppose spray painting circles on a public roadway technically counts as "defacing" but come on. It's not like he was spraying graffiti on a building.
As I said, I don't typically write about misdemeanor crimes in my column. My interest is typically piqued by the First Amendment. And I can't help but wonder if there is a First Amendment claim lurking in here somewhere. Is Lockland retaliating against Mr. Strole based on the content of his expression? If his paint job weren't such an in- your-face gesture, would he have found himself in criminal court? That likely depends on a lot of factors, like how often Lockland enforces this ordinance and whether others have been let off the hook. But if Lockland pursued this because they didn't like the content of Mr. Strole's "speech," they may have First Amendment problem on their hands.
A jury trial usually ends matters. But this one may just be beginning.