To amend sections 2907.07 and 2921.32 of the Revised Code to expand the offenses of importuning and obstructing justice.
HB 927 would amend Ohio’s criminal code in two areas: importuning and obstructing justice. On the importuning side, the bill expands and reorganizes the offense to cover a broader range of sexual solicitations involving minors, including solicitations made in person or through telecommunications devices, and explicitly includes situations involving law-enforcement officers posing as minors. It also adds or clarifies age-based categories, including conduct involving children under 13, minors under 16, and certain 16- and 17-year-old victims in specified circumstances.
The bill also revises the penalties tied to importuning. It preserves felony treatment for violations but increases the severity in some cases, adds presumptions of prison time, and requires mandatory prison terms in certain circumstances, such as when the offender arranges to meet the minor or has prior sexually oriented or child-victim-oriented convictions. The proposal also amends obstructing justice by adding a new duty to immediately report to law enforcement knowledge that an adult is attempting to meet a minor more than four years younger for sexual activity, making failure to report a form of obstructing justice.
HB 927 would directly amend Revised Code sections 2907.07 and 2921.32, broadening the scope of criminal liability for sexual solicitation of minors and adding a reporting-based offense under obstructing justice. The bill would affect adults who solicit minors, those who communicate through phones or other telecommunications devices, and individuals who conceal or assist such conduct. It would also increase sentencing exposure by creating additional felony classifications, prison presumptions, and mandatory prison terms, while leaving existing sections repealed and replaced with the new language.
The available legislative record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material. As a result, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess from the record here. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and child-protection proposal focused on stronger enforcement against sexual predation and related concealment.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expansion of criminal liability and the new reporting requirement. Critics could question whether the bill’s broader age-based categories, telecommunications provisions, and mandatory prison terms are too expansive or could create harsh penalties in borderline cases. The new obligation to report an adult’s attempt to meet a minor for sexual activity may also raise concerns about vagueness, enforcement, and whether failure to report should be treated as obstructing justice. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence, child protection, and stronger tools for law enforcement.