The city of Cincinnati asked a federal appeals court Friday to revive its “drug exclusion zone” in Over-the-Rhine.

        The exclusion zone was created in 1996 when City Council passed a law banning convicted or accused drug offenders from entering the neighborhood.

        Two lower courts have thrown out the exclusion zone, saying it punishes people a second time for the same offense.

        Those courts also ruled that the zone infringes on the freedom of association and unfairly limits a person's right to move freely in a public area.

        But city officials say the zone is a legal and effective way for Cincinnati to restrict drug trafficking in one of its most crime-ridden neighborhoods.

        On Friday, city lawyers asked the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to overturn the lower court rulings and reinstate the exclusion zone.

        “Governments have not only a right but a duty to remediate areas blighted by drug use,” said Richard Ganulin, an assistant city solicitor. “We have to balance the government's interests with the rights of the individual.”

        He said the city enacted the exclusion zone law because Over-the-Rhine accounts for about 20 percent of drug-related arrests in Cincinnati.

        Opponents of the law argue that the seriousness of the drug problem does not allow the city to trample the constitutional rights of individuals.

        The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law on behalf of two Cincinnatians, Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France. Mr. Au France was convicted of a drug-related crime in 1996. Ms. Johnson was arrested for a drug offense but the charges were dismissed.

        The law allows the city to ban anyone arrested for drug crimes, such as Ms. Johnson, for up to 90 days. Those convicted of drug crimes, such as Mr. Au France, are banned for a year.

        In both cases, their lawyers say, the exclusion zone infringed on their freedoms to associate and to travel. They say the city has no legal right to further restrict the freedom of people who already have been punished — or cleared of wrongdoing — by the courts.

        “The ability to move from place to place is the physical embodiment of freedom,” said Bernard Wong, Mr. Au France's lawyer.

        Mr. Wong said Ms. Johnson was unable to care for her grandchildren in Over-the-Rhine, while Mr. Au France was unable to visit his lawyer's office.

        U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott ruled two years ago that those restrictions were unconstitutional. In a different case last year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the law violates Ohio's constitution.

        The city is attempting to appeal the Ohio Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

        One of the three 6th Circuit judges hearing the case, Boyce F. Martin Jr., suggested the appeals court may not rule in the case until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the constitutional questions.

        For now, the exclusion zone no longer exists. The city will be unable to enforce the law unless it wins the appeals.

City fights for drug exclusion zone
Asbestos puts scare in workers
Eight 'graduates' joining city police
Priest from Uganda mourned
Tamer Mardi Gras in works
Antarctic visits recounted
Girl, 16, charged with vehicular homicide
'Souper Bowl' feeds hungry
Tristate A.M. Report
Villages unite to improve
Vine St. overseer begins city job
Whitewater land bought for parks
THOMPSON: Faith Matters
MCNUTT: Warren County
SAMPLES: Historical, spiritual nonfiction?
WELLS: The Cheney syndrome
Butler Co. sister has only hope
3-year-old DNA sample leads to arrest in rape
Family says goodbye to matriarch
Trials in Lebanon likely done
McConnell raises $3.5 million
Enron has Bunning backpedaling
Federal funds sought for sidewalks
Kentucky News Briefs
Ky. man charged in pair of rapes
Local 'stars' get air time in GED show
Lucas' challenger gets funds