Ohio House Bill HB514

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/14/25

Caption

To enact sections 149.437 and 2950.036 of the Revised Code to specify that a video, taken by a public office depicting a minor at a public recreational facility with water activities, is not a public record, and is subject to restricted release, and to prohibit a sexually oriented offender or child-victim oriented offender from establishing or maintaining a library box.

Summary

HB514 would create two new sections of the Ohio Revised Code. First, it would classify certain videos held by a public office as “restricted video” records when they depict a minor at a public recreational facility with water activities. Those videos would be excluded from Ohio’s public records law, meaning they would not be available for ordinary inspection or copying. Instead, a requester would have to submit a written request describing the purpose and intended use, and the public office would be required to screen the requester for sex-offender status and for any investigation involving minors, stalking, or harassment of a person depicted in the video. Second, the bill would make it a crime for a person convicted of, or pleading guilty to, a sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense to recklessly establish or maintain a “library box,” defined broadly as a community lending-library container or structure. A violation would be a first-degree misdemeanor. In effect, the bill adds both a public-records restriction aimed at protecting minors in water-recreation settings and a new criminal prohibition tied to community book-exchange boxes.

Impact

The bill would amend Ohio public records law by carving out a new category of nonpublic records for certain government-held videos involving minors at water-related recreational facilities, while also creating a controlled-release process for those records. It would further expand the criminal code by adding a new offense under Chapter 2950 that bars certain sex offenders and child-victim offenders from establishing or maintaining library boxes, with misdemeanor penalties for violations. The practical effect would be to limit access to some footage held by public offices and to impose a new restriction on a specific group of offenders regarding community lending-library structures.

Sentiment

Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee votes or transcripts, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s structure suggests a protective, child-safety-oriented purpose, which may appeal to lawmakers concerned with privacy and offender restrictions. At the same time, the public-records limitation and the offender-screening requirement could raise concerns among transparency advocates and civil-liberties observers about access to government records and the breadth of the new restrictions.

Contention

The most likely points of contention are the public-records exemption and the offender-based screening process for obtaining restricted videos. Critics may question whether the exemption is narrowly tailored, how public offices would verify sex-offender status or active investigations, and whether the law could impede legitimate requests for records. The library-box prohibition may also draw scrutiny because it applies to a broad category of offenders and uses a reckless-mental-state standard for conduct that may be difficult to define in practice. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection, privacy, and preventing misuse of footage or community structures by offenders.