To amend section 4513.36 of the Revised Code to expand the prohibition against interfering with arrest to all motor vehicle-related laws and require drivers and passengers to disclose their name, address, and date of birth to a peace officer on request.
HB492 would amend Ohio Revised Code section 4513.36, which governs interference with law enforcement in traffic and other motor vehicle-related matters. The bill broadens the existing prohibition on resisting, hindering, obstructing, or abusing an officer so that it applies to enforcement of all provisions in Title XLV of the Revised Code, rather than the narrower set of motor vehicle and highway-related sections currently referenced. It also creates a new duty for a vehicle operator, streetcar operator, or trackless trolley operator to disclose their name, address, and date of birth when a police officer reasonably suspects a violation of a Title XLV law or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.
The bill assigns criminal penalties for violations of both provisions. Interfering with an officer under division (A) would remain punishable as a minor misdemeanor, while refusing to provide identifying information under division (B) would be a fourth-degree misdemeanor. In practical terms, the bill would expand police authority during traffic and other Title XLV enforcement encounters and add a statutory identification requirement for operators of vehicles and similar conveyances.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the House, advancing out of committee on a 7-3 vote and then passing the House 59-21. That voting pattern suggests support from a majority of members, but with meaningful opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the recorded votes indicate the measure was not unanimous and likely raised civil liberties or enforcement concerns.
The main point of contention is the expanded obligation to identify oneself to police based on reasonable suspicion of a Title XLV violation, which may be viewed as increasing police authority and creating additional criminal exposure for drivers and other operators. Supporters likely view the bill as a tool to improve compliance and officer safety during traffic enforcement, while opponents may be concerned about privacy, compelled disclosure, and the breadth of the expanded interference prohibition. The bill was introduced in the House Public Safety Committee and had not advanced beyond the House at the time reflected in the record.
HB492 would amend R.C. 4513.36 and broaden its scope to cover interference with enforcement of all Title XLV motor vehicle laws and substantially equivalent municipal ordinances. It would also impose a new statutory duty on operators of vehicles, streetcars, and trackless trolleys to provide name, address, and date of birth to a police officer on request when the officer reasonably suspects a Title XLV violation. The bill would create a fourth-degree misdemeanor for refusal to provide that information and retain a minor misdemeanor penalty for interference with enforcement.
The available voting history suggests the bill had majority support but also notable opposition. It passed House committee 7-3 and the full House 59-21, indicating a generally favorable sentiment among lawmakers, though not broad consensus. Because no committee transcript is available, the record does not show detailed arguments, but the split votes imply concerns from some members about the bill’s expansion of police authority and compelled disclosure requirements.
The central controversy is the bill’s expansion of police-enforcement powers during motor vehicle-related encounters. Critics are likely to object to requiring operators to disclose identifying information on request based on reasonable suspicion of a Title XLV violation, arguing it may burden privacy rights and increase criminal penalties for noncompliance. Supporters likely favor the measure as a way to strengthen traffic-law enforcement and officer safety. Another point of contention is the broadened interference language, which extends beyond the prior narrower set of traffic statutes to all Title XLV provisions and related municipal ordinances.