PRESS RELEASE – A panel of judges on the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, granted a motion to stay the imposition of the criminal sentence of Pastor Chris Avell of Dad’s Place, a Bryan, Ohio church.
Following the criminal trial of Pastor Avell earlier this year, a Bryan Municipal Court judge imposed a $200 fine and 60-day suspended jail sentence on Pastor Avell for keeping his church’s doors open to those in need, 24-hours a day.
First Liberty Institute and the law firms Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Gibson Dunn, and Spengler Nathanson PLL represent Dad’s Place.
Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute said, “This is the second time that an Ohio appellate court has recognized that Dad’s Place’s case presents a strong likelihood to succeed on appeal.”
“We are grateful to the court for granting this stay and will continue to fight until city officials in Bryan abandon their harassment of Dad’s Place and Pastor Chris. “
“Most especially, we appreciate the outspoken leadership of Attorney General Yost whose multiple briefs in support of Pastor Avell has helped make this possible.”
Dad’s Place is a church in Northwest Ohio that operates 24-hours a day to serve the homeless.
“For over a year, the City of Bryan, Ohio has been aggressively attacking the church in court, including alleged zoning violations, middle-of-the-night fire inspections, police antagonism, and even criminal charges filed against the church’s pastor”, a press release from First Liberty Institute said.
“And while city officials demand the church install an expensive fire suppression system, the city does not require all of its motels, most of its apartment complexes, and even a senior living facility to install fire suppression systems in their buildings.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has submitted three briefs in support of Dad’s Place.
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, also recently issued a stay of an injunction issued by Williams County Court of Common Pleas, allowing the church to continue operating while on appeal.
In that decision, the court found that the church “asserted a reasonable question of law” on appeal.
