The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gunset Training Group or its affiliates.
Click HERE to view the original post on the GunSnobbery Blog
Author’s note: This post does not offer legal advice. I am not a lawyer. The State of Ohio certifies me to teach Ohio’s laws in the Basic Police Academy. I have been teaching legal topics in various police academies since 2013, including the older laws discussed in this article. I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying federal law and Ohio’s laws in 30 years on the job. More than anything, this post is an attempt to educate people on portions of the law and to show them where they can find the laws so that they can educate themselves further. Please consult with an attorney who specializes in criminal law if you have questions that require a legal opinion. If you are a law enforcement officer, check with your jurisdiction’s legal counsel for guidance. And remember, not all attorneys are created equal. And keep in mind that laws, interpretations of laws and definitions change. So what was current at the time I published this article may have changed over time.
Over the last few days I’ve seen too many headlines similar to the one in the title of this article. Those titles are misleading and inflammatory because that is NOT what House Bill 492 actually does. I don’t know if these outlets are trying to be inflammatory to get clicks and comments in their post or if they are just ignorant of what the law actually says because they didn’t read it. Either way, people are getting all bent out of shape for no reason. I made the mistake of reading the comments on some of the posts from Columbus and Cincinnati news outlets. The number of people who blindly accept what the media reports is disturbing, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone. So let me break down what this “new” law actually does. I’ll start with the current laws that already apply to these situations.
First, a driver having a legal obligation to identify themselves is really nothing new. Some variation of Ohio Revised Code 4507.35 has been on the books for YEARS. If you are driving and get stopped, 4507.35 requires you to provide your driver’s license or enough information about yourself to the officer to prove you have a driver’s license. How can someone prove they have a drivers license if they don’t have the physical one with them? Well, they can provide a Social Security Number (SSN). We usually ask for an SSN because it is easy for most people to remember (as an added bonus we don’t have to figure out how people spell their names) and most people do not know their driver’s license number. If we do not ask for a SSN, we usually ask for – you guessed it – a name and date of birth.
Second, Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 has required people, under certain circumstances, to give their name, address and date of birth to Officers for DECADES. One of those circumstances revolves around whether there is reasonable suspicion to show that the person has committed, is about to commit or is committing a criminal offense. This includes being the driver of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. There are plenty of court case examples of this if you know where to look. This same section of the law would apply to passengers who have violated a law (like not wearing a seatbelt) or meet one of the other criteria that requires them to identify themselves. If you violate this statute, you can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor of the FOURTH degree. The important part to understand is this – you are only legally obligated to identify yourself when the officer who is demanding your identity has reasonable suspicion that you’ve committed/are committing/about to commit a crime or have witnessed certain other crimes. It’s settled law.
Now that we have established that there are already laws on the books that deal with identifying yourself, let’s dive into this “new” law.
It’s important to note that according to the Ohio Legislative Service Bill Analysis, this law does five things:
The third summary point is what is causing the most angst amongst the commenters I have seen online. So I’ll focus on that portion of the law. This bill created two subsections of Ohio Revised Code 4513.36 that deal with drivers and passengers in motor vehicles. It is important to note that drivers have their own subsection and passengers have their own subsection.
(C)(1)(a) specifically requires drivers to identify themselves (name, address and date of birth) when the officer “reasonably suspects” (reasonable suspicion) that the DRIVER has committed a violation of Title XLV (45 – the traffic code) of the Revised Code.
(C)(1)(b) specifically requires passengers to identify themselves (name, address and date of birth) when the officer “reasonably suspects” (reasonable suspicion) that the PASSENGER has committed a violation of Title XLV (45 – the traffic code) of the Revised Code. Which means, contrary to what some news media outlets are saying, that passengers don’t have to identify themselves if there is no reasonable suspicion that they have violated some statute in Title XLV. If you look at Title XLV, you’ll see that there are not that many statutes that apply to passengers. The most common would be a seat belt violation.
So no, under this new law passengers do not have to identify themselves to the police for merely being a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped by the police. If the legislature wanted passengers to identify themselves just because they were in the car, they would have written the law differently and there would not be two different sections of the law. Although I’m not a lawyer, I don’t think a broader law would pass a constitutional test. I think this one will because it’s just a variation of laws that are already on the books.
So what is the point of HB492? Well, I can only give you my opinion as to why this bill got passed. I think there are two main reasons – frustration and ignorance. Huh, what? Bear with me as I walk you through this.
Let’s start with frustration. If you haven’t watched any body camera video of drivers who refuse to identify themselves after they’ve been lawfully stopped you should go visit YouTube or Rumble and watch a few. It’s easy to see why police, prosecutors, lawmakers and regular citizens get frustrated with uncooperative drivers. So many of these incidents that end in a use of force could have been avoided if the driver just provided their ID when they were legally obligated to do so.
Now let’s talk about ignorance. And this ignorance involves cops, prosecutors and yes, even the lawmakers themselves. It is an ignorance about what the current laws (4507.35 and 2921.29) say and in how they are interpreted by the courts. The picture above is a screenshot of a testimony letter from one of the hearings for HB492. It’s from the Colonel in charge of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Based on the paragraph I highlighted, it appears that the Colonel (or whoever wrote that for him) thinks that 4507.35 only applies to “collisions”. That tells me that whoever wrote that may not understand how to read statutes.
“And”, “or”, “either” and some other words are very important to statute construction. In this case, “or” is a very important word. The Courts have made it clear that 4507.35 applies in situations that don’t involve crashes.
And what about prosecutors? I found this testimony from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Association (OPAA) very interesting because even they don’t appear to have a clear understanding of how 2921.29 works.
According to this testimony, the OPAA doesn’t think 2921.29 applies to these situations because (according to them) traffic offenses are not the criminal offenses referenced in 2921.29.
At least some federal district Judges and state appeals courts disagree.
Well, I guess I should add some defense attorneys to this list. As I was doing some research on this article I came across a blog from a defense attorney and found this post about 2921.29:
“This crime is where a police officer asks you for information regarding a violent crime you just witnessed, and you refuse to give the suspect’s name, address, or date of birth (if known). You are obligated by law to give the law enforcement officer the information he or she needs if the officer reasonably suspects an offense of violence constitutes a felony in Ohio. This law pertains to witnesses of a crime that occurs in a public place.
However, nothing more than the above need be given to law enforcement. The person asked does not need to describe the crime in detail and can rely only on the information above. Also, if the age of the suspect is not an element to the suspected crime, then the person need not give the date of birth or age.”
I have no idea where this information came from since it had no basis in reality. 2921.29 is about providing your information, not a suspect’s.
In the end, what does all of this mean? Well, it’s nothing to worry about because nothing really changed. If you ask me, any ambiguity in the law regarding when people need to provide ID could have been resolved by removing SIX words and adding TWO words to 2921.29. Make it read, “No person shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects ….The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal or traffic offense.” Or you could be fancy and add the “a violation of Title XLV” language instead.
And the first part of 4513.36 that deals with expanding the number of traffic offenses in which someone cannot interfere with the arrest? Total waste of time. In 31 years I have NEVER seen a person charged with that statute and I cannot find an appeals court decision with that charge. There are other charges (obstructing official business, obstructing justice or resisting arrest) that are used instead. But hey, they’re helping, right?
In the end, there is nothing in this law that is really “new” or newsworthy. So people shouldn’t waste any energy getting worked up about it.
