To amend sections 2929.141, 2929.34, 2935.10, 2935.11, 5120.021, 5120.038, 5589.21, and 5589.211 of the Revised Code to enact the Reagan Tokes and Patrick Heringer Act to require certain warrants to be entered into LEADS, to require GPS monitoring of offenders released from prison, and to modify T-CAP requirements.
HB667, titled the Reagan Tokes and Patrick Heringer Act, makes several changes to Ohio criminal justice and law enforcement procedures. It would require certain warrants tied to specified offenses and supervision violations to be entered into LEADS and NCIC within 48 hours, with related notification and removal requirements. The bill also revises sentencing and supervision rules for people who commit new felonies while on post-release control or transitional control, and it updates provisions governing targeted community alternatives to prison (T-CAP) participation by counties.
The bill further expands and standardizes GPS monitoring for offenders released from prison under conditional pardon, parole, transitional control, or post-release control when monitoring is imposed as a condition. It requires the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to use a single vendor for GPS monitoring, mandates continuous monitoring, and requires the vendor’s system to include crime-scene-correlation capabilities that can be accessed by local law enforcement without a subpoena or warrant. The bill also preserves and restates railroad obstruction provisions, including procedures for summonses when railroads block roads or highways, and it repeals the existing versions of the amended statutes.
HB667 would amend multiple sections of the Revised Code affecting sentencing, post-release supervision, warrant entry, offender monitoring, county prison-alternative programs, and railroad obstruction enforcement. Its practical effect would be to increase the speed and visibility of certain warrants in state and federal law-enforcement databases, expand law-enforcement access to GPS monitoring information, and tighten administrative requirements for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and participating counties. It would also alter how some felony offenders on supervision are sanctioned and how T-CAP eligibility and county participation operate.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger public-safety and supervision tools. The bill’s title and provisions suggest a focus on improving offender tracking, warrant dissemination, and enforcement coordination, which are typically framed as crime-prevention measures. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or floor debate to gauge broader legislative sentiment beyond the introduced version and its public-safety orientation.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s expanded GPS monitoring and law-enforcement access provisions, especially the requirement for continuous monitoring, a single vendor, and warrantless access to location and crime-scene-correlation data. Privacy, civil-liberties, cost, and implementation concerns may arise from those provisions. There may also be debate over the bill’s changes to T-CAP participation and sentencing consequences for people on post-release or transitional control, since those provisions affect county discretion and offender placement. The railroad obstruction sections could also draw interest from rail operators and local governments, though the bill text does not include recorded objections.