To amend sections 2152.02, 2152.19, 2923.24, 2930.12, 2930.13, and 2951.03 of the Revised Code to prohibit possession of an electronic device under circumstances indicating an intent to commit a theft offense that involves a motor vehicle.
Summary
HB519 would amend Ohio’s criminal tools statute to specifically include possession of an electronic device or tool when the circumstances indicate an intent to steal a motor vehicle. The bill defines the relevant device or tool as one designed or adapted for unlocking or turning on a motor vehicle, while excluding a previously issued or activated electronic card, key, or other electronic device assigned to the lawful owner of the vehicle. In effect, the bill creates a clearer basis for charging someone with possessing criminal tools when law enforcement can show the device was being held for vehicle theft-related use.
The bill also preserves the existing structure of Ohio’s criminal tools law, under which possession of such items is generally a first-degree misdemeanor, but becomes a fifth-degree felony if the circumstances indicate the item was intended for use in committing a felony. The introduced text amends Revised Code section 2923.24 and repeals the existing version of that section, while the broader bill caption indicates related changes to juvenile, victim-rights, and probation statutes tied to theft offenses involving motor vehicles.
Impact
HB519 would expand and clarify Ohio law on possession of criminal tools by expressly covering electronic devices used in motor vehicle theft, giving prosecutors a more specific statutory hook in car theft cases. It would affect Revised Code section 2923.24 directly and, according to the bill caption, would also make conforming changes to juvenile adjudication, sentencing, victim-notification, and probation-related provisions in sections 2152.02, 2152.19, 2930.12, 2930.13, and 2951.03. The practical impact would be on individuals alleged to possess car-theft tools, as well as on law enforcement and prosecutors handling theft offenses involving vehicles.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill: it received unanimous favorable passage in the House Public Safety Committee and then passed the House 82-0. That suggests broad bipartisan agreement that the bill addresses a public-safety concern related to motor vehicle theft. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed debate or opposition arguments, but the vote totals indicate little to no visible resistance in the House.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be whether the law should specifically criminalize possession of electronic devices associated with vehicle theft, rather than relying on the existing general criminal-tools statute. Supporters likely view the change as a needed response to modern auto-theft methods, while potential concerns would center on how broadly “circumstances indicating an intent to steal a motor vehicle” could be applied and whether the statute could sweep in lawful possession of electronic devices. The bill text attempts to limit that risk by excluding devices assigned to the lawful owner, but the scope of proof needed to show criminal intent remains the key point of contention.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.