By Anna Staver
cleveland.com
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A growing wave of drivers emboldened by online “know your rights” videos has prompted Ohio lawmakers to consider jailing people who refuse to identify themselves during traffic stops.
House Bill 492, up for its third hearing on Tuesday, would both expand an existing interference statute and create a new “refusal to disclose” offense for drivers.
POLICE RESEARCH: How 8-, 10- and 12-hour police shifts affect staffing and wellness
The measure would make it a fourth-degree misdemeanor—punishable by up to 30 days in jail—for a motorist to refuse to provide their name, address, or date of birth during a traffic stop when an officer suspects a traffic or equipment violation. It would also broaden the definition of interference during an arrest under Ohio’s motor vehicle code, raising that penalty from a minor misdemeanor to a second-degree misdemeanor.
“Not cooperating shouldn’t be treated like a minor inconvenience,” Rep. Sharon Ray, a Wadsworth Republican, said.
Ohio courts have repeatedly found that refusing to identify yourself during a traffic stop doesn’t qualify as obstructing official business, the charge officers typically rely on in those situations.
In Toledo v. Dandridge, the Sixth District Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 that a driver’s refusal to provide a name or license was not obstruction because it wasn’t an “affirmative act.”
The Eighth District reached the same conclusion in 2020 in State v. Ellis, overturning a conviction where the defendant merely refused to cooperate with fingerprinting.
“We have extremely polite folks who won’t give their identification,” Ray said.
Republican Rep. Cindy Abrams, a former Cincinnati police officer, said that puts officers in a difficult position—unsure whether they’re dealing with a harmless protest or something far more serious.
She once had a man refuse to tell her who he was, only to discover he was wanted for murder in Akron once she ran his fingerprints.
The bill is backed by the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and other law enforcement groups, who say there’s no clear resolution to the legal gray area without a legislative fix.
“These people, along with sovereign citizens, will turn on their cameras and escalate a rather mundane event by arguing with officers and challenging them until force is the only option left,” FOP of Ohio lobbyist Mike Weinman said.
Supporters emphasized that HB 492 wouldn’t give police new authority to demand identification in every situation. Officers could only charge someone if they’re stopped on a road or waterway for a suspected violation like speeding, running a red light or failing to signal.
Cincinnati Democratic Rep. Cecil Thomas, also a former police officer, initially expressed some reservations during HB 492’s first hearing but appeared to later change his mind.
“I don’t have a problem with the bill,” Thomas said during the second hearing. “I think it’s a good bill.”
Have you dealt with drivers who refuse to provide ID during a stop? Would a law like this make a difference for officers? Share your perspective below.
Police1 readers respond
- As a police officer in neighboring Indiana, I am amazed that Ohio is finally getting a law like this. We have had it for as long as I can remember, and this law is perfect for the situations in your article, and also for those who lie about their name and date of birth, etc. I am glad that Ohio is getting this valuable tool for law enforcement.
- We must consider the consequences of this bill, and what it may or will eventually create. When a driver is cited for a violation, doesn’t the officer run the plates of the vehicle to determine the identity and address of the owner/driver? The driver’s license with a picture of the driver should be in the BMV database. If the picture identity of the driver does not match up with the data on record, then perhaps it is warranted to ask for information from the driver. If the information matches, then send the citation by mail to the driver’s address of record. If there is probable cause for detaining the driver, then the officer making the stop can use other means available. This invasive bill could lead to further restrictions on freedom of movement and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The threat of invasive-like policies such as these could be abused to restrict people’s rights. Camera surveillance is already being used to identify speed violations, where a citation is sent to the offending driver’s address of record. Law enforcement tools are a good thing, but this legislation could be used in a manner to punish rather than cite, and administer appropriate consequences for violating the law.
- I’m a privacy advocate. I strongly oppose this bill.
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit cleveland.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
