A Cincinnati judge who sentenced a teen to six months in jail, released him ten days later after PINAC News brought the story to national attention.
But the Ohio judge is still holding the teen’s phone.
And the judge conveniently left that out of the Facebook announcement for his 2016 re-election campaign [**Facebook page.**](https://www.facebook.com/keepjudgeruehlman2016/)
He did, however, post on that [**page**](https://www.facebook.com/keepjudgeruehlman2016/) two Cincinnati.com stories about his unjust imprisonment of Daymar Whitehead.
But surprisingly the jurist politician doesn’t have any of PINAC’s widely read prior reports on this particular [**abuse of judicial power**](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/04/cincinnati-judge-cruelly-sentences-teen-who-took-photos-6-months-in-jail-for-contempt/) happening ([**again**](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/06/cincinnati-man-arrested-while-walking-with-cappuccino-re-arrested-for-photographing-police/) and [**again**](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/12/ohio-man-sentenced-to-240-days-for-recording-cops-and-holding-up-sign-warning-drivers-of-dui-checkpoint/)) in Ohio.
*Ed. Note: If you’d like to help Daymar Whitehead get his phone back, please dial Judge Robert P. Reuhlman in chambers (513) 946-6029, operators are standing by to hear your case on his behalf.*
Daymar Whitehead was in court for a drivers license violation when he recognized his friend, Maleik.
Whitehead took pictures from his smart phone, as Maleik was led by deputies down the hallway
Coincidentally, Maleik was there for a bond reduction hearing heard by Judge Ruehlman.
When sharply after, a single photo landed him in jail.
Even though photography is not a crime.
Judges love to make arcane courthouse rules.
But without any national standards most people aren’t aware that judges can’t even legally restrict photography inside of a courthouse.
That doesn’t explain for a second why Judge Robert Ruehlman originally ordered Whitehead’s phone to be destroyed.
Nor why it hasn’t yet been returned.
Judges have no authority to overrule the Constitution’s prohibition on taking property by the state without due process.
Five minutes of contempt hearings, in front of an angry and impulsive jurist, hardly qualifies as due process.
We [**reported**](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/04/03/cincinnati-judge-cruelly-sentences-teen-who-took-photos-6-months-in-jail-for-contempt/) about Daymar Whitehead’s original excessive sentence of six months behind bars last week when Judge Robert Ruehlman imposed the cruel and unusual sentence upon the eighteen-year-old.
Ruehlman found that when Whitehead took photos of deputies in the hallway, he was in contempt of court.
Apparently, after the judge received some negative media attention over it, he changed his mind about the lengthy sentence.
*Click Here To Visit: Keep Judge Ruehlman 2016 On Facebook*
And that’s why he set Whitehead free ten days later, [**according to Cincinatti.com**](http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/04/10/teen-jailed-taking-photos-court-released/82868852/):
So now, the Judge appears to be in full-on public relations mode, not ruling from the bench today, but conducting damage control on his [**Facebook page instead.**](https://www.facebook.com/keepjudgeruehlman2016/?fref=ts)
Judge Ruehlman was careful how he worded his Facebook post, completely in the third-person, explaining why Daymar Whitehead had been set free.
And said he’d do it all again.
Ruehlman is also the [**same judge we reported**](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/06/cincinnati-man-arrested-while-walking-with-cappuccino-re-arrested-for-photographing-police/) about last month, who also sentenced Charles Harwell to six months in jail for taking photos of deputies in the courthouse hallway.
Judge Ruehlman has been widely criticized in the past for making emotion-based sentences as a judge.
Citizens have widely panned the elected judge for his very un-judge-like pronouncements from the bench, leading most Ohio citizens to believe he is a biased jurist.
But voters will decide soon enough.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/06/cincinnati-man-arrested-while-walking-with-cappuccino-re-arrested-for-photographing-police/
According to his Facebook page, Ruehlman attended the Cincinnati Citizens Police Association dinner last night with a few of his pals, Judge Norbert Nadel and Candidate for Judge Thomas Heekin.
So he’s obviously a police supporter, which explains why he criminalizes taking photos of deputies who don’t want to be photographed.
A 2014 editorial titled [**Judge should keep a grip on emotions**](http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/03/05/editorial-courthouse-a-breakdown-in-civility-/6094615/) criticized his rash decision making after he retaliated against a defendant’s sister who made an ugly comment to a victim’s father.
Judge Ruelman referred to the woman as an ‘animal’:
> Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman [**called a family member of a defendant “an animal”**](http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/04/big-mouth-brother-sister-behind-bars/6020975/ “http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/04/big-mouth-brother-sister-behind-bars/6020975/”) and sent her to jail for 30 days, even ordering the sheriff to make sure she serves the full term.
> Ruehlman’s sentence may have been hasty and given out in anger. That’s unfortunate. But courtroom decorum has been on the decline, and Ruehlman is rightly concerned about maintaining order both in the court and outside of it.
> Still, a judge should keep a better grip on his own emotions. Further, sending someone to jail for 30 days, when the jail is chronically overcrowded, is injudicious.
It’s pretty clear how Judge Robert Ruehlman views the people he serves.
Or rules over.
It seems Ruehlman also has a few too many . . . rules.
Man.
In this case, we would like to know under what rule the Judge is holding Whitehead’s phone?
Because he still hasn’t given Whitehead’s smartphone back.
If you’d like to ask Judge Ruehlman what gives him the right to ignore Daymar Whitehead’s 5th Amendment rights, please give the jurist a call at (513) 946-6029.
Update: Judge Ruehlman has been busy banning people expressing their thoughts on his Facebook page. Apparently, Judge Ruehlman lacks any respect for the First Amendment and doesn’t care to hear the voice of voters.
A government official stifling the free speech privileges of citizens discussing matters important to society would be just one more civil rights violation carried out by this Constitution-hating, and likely bigoted, “judge”.
Even if it is on his personal re-election page, Judge Ruehlman obviously doesn’t want hear the voices of some of his constituents.
For someone who holds that much power over people’s lives, that’s a shame.
*Grant Stern contributed to this report.*
