To amend section 2909.05 of the Revised Code to prohibit the unlawful removal of any item or adornment from any tomb, monument, gravestone, or other similar structure that is used as a memorial for the dead.
HB879 amends Ohio’s vandalism statute to make it expressly unlawful to purposely remove any item or adornment from a tomb, monument, gravestone, or similar memorial structure for the dead. The bill also clarifies that items left at or placed on such memorials are not abandoned property, which would help prevent arguments that flowers, flags, mementos, or other tributes can be taken because they were left behind. In addition to this new removal offense, the bill restates and reorganizes existing prohibitions against causing physical harm to cemeteries, burial places, and memorial structures.
The measure keeps violations within the vandalism framework under section 2909.05 and preserves the existing felony grading structure tied to the amount of damage involved. Under the bill, vandalism remains a fifth-degree felony by default, with higher felony levels for greater property damage. It also retains definitions for cemetery and serious physical harm, including protection for American Indian burial sites and burial objects.
HB879 would amend section 2909.05 of the Revised Code, expanding Ohio’s vandalism law to cover the unauthorized removal of memorial items and adornments from gravesites and related structures. It would affect criminal enforcement by giving prosecutors a clearer statutory basis to charge conduct involving theft or removal of flowers, tokens, plaques, flags, or other tributes from cemeteries and memorials, while leaving the existing felony penalty structure in place. The bill would also reinforce legal protections for cemeteries, tombs, monuments, gravestones, and burial places, including sites associated with American Indian remains and burial objects.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Public Safety Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, noncontroversial public-safety and respect-for-the-dead proposal. No formal opposition or support is documented in the supplied history.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee or voting record. The most likely policy issue raised by the text is the new rule that items left at gravesites are not abandoned property, which could affect how cemeteries, families, and law enforcement handle memorial objects. Another possible area of discussion is whether the bill’s new removal prohibition overlaps with existing theft, trespass, or vandalism laws, but no explicit disagreement is shown in the materials provided.