By Mary Frances McGowan
cleveland.com
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation Tuesday making it a crime for drivers and passengers to refuse to identify themselves during a traffic stop.
House Bill 492, which cleared the Ohio House in November and passed the Senate before lawmakers recessed for the summer, makes it a fourth-degree misdemeanor for a driver or passenger to refuse to provide their name, address or date of birth when a peace officer reasonably suspects they have committed a violation of Ohio motor-vehicle laws. A fourth-degree misdemeanor carries a potential penalty of up to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.
| RESOURCE: Choose the right real-time policing model for your agency
The bill also broadens the definition of interference with an officer under Ohio’s motor-vehicle code, raising the penalty from a minor misdemeanor to a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine.
The law becomes effective in 90 days.
Throughout the legislative process, critics of the bill argued that the more severe penalties were disproportionate to the scope of the offenses.
“This expansive broadening means that interference with an officer during enforcement of even a minor or routine nonmoving violation, such as a faulty taillight or lapsed registration, could now trigger a serious obstruction charge,” wrote Zachary Miller, a legislative officer for the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, in opponent testimony.
Supporters, meanwhile, said it provides a necessary framework for law enforcement to follow during traffic stops.
“This targeted change, accompanied by an appropriate penalty, will help encourage drivers and occupants to be voluntary partners in public safety,” wrote Col. Charles A. Jones of the State Highway Patrol in proponent testimony.
Ohio courts have repeatedly found that refusing to identify oneself during a traffic stop does not constitute obstructing official business, the charge officers have typically relied on in those situations.
In Toledo v. Dandridge, the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 that a driver’s refusal to provide a name or driver’s license was not obstruction because it was not an “affirmative act.” Similarly, the 8th District reached the same conclusion in State v. Ellis in 2020, overturning a conviction where the defendant merely refused to cooperate with fingerprinting.
The bill was backed by the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and other law enforcement groups, which argued that existing case law left a gap in enforcement that could only be resolved through legislation.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit cleveland.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Do you believe legislation like this Ohio law will help curb traffic infractions and refusals to identify?
Police1 readers respond:
- I believe that a driver should have to identify for a traffic infraction stop; however, I see no need for the passenger to identify if indeed the police suspect him of nothing, or suspect the driver of nothing but the original traffic stop. I see no need for that for just the reason that the passenger is in the car with the driver. It can be asked, but by the same token it should be able to be refused without articulable reasoning.....some police officers forget that there is Constitutional reasoning behind every ruling; evidently, the legislators have forgotten that as well.
- This is a great law. I don’t know why anyone would not want to comply with an officer’s request to provide ID. MUST BE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING.
- Absolutely, this is necessary. Under state law here in Tennessee, failure to be identified for a citation means you will be arrested for a misdemeanor. Most physical arrests under circumstances like this will result in a use of force. In today’s world, being cooperative and civil requires a law.
- I think this new law will violate the 4th amendment of any passenger who is merely along for the ride.
- Yes, this is a good law that will assist LEOs in performing their duties, especially troopers keeping our roadways safe. It is reasonable and the penalties are not excessive.
- Yes. Unequivocally. Everybody wants to “assert their rights” until they have a real threat of arrest. Thank you Ohio Legislature, and Gov. DeWine.
- Passengers shouldn’t have to identify, if they haven’t done anything wrong. The passenger, isn’t the one being pulled over. The driver is. Only time the passenger should have to identify, is if they aren’t wearing their seatbelt. That’s the only time.
Name, address OR date of birth no physical proof just verbal if you’ve not broken any laws why would you have a problem with showing your ID.
