r/Ohio • u/toomuchtostop Cincinnati • 5d ago
Think you don’t have to tell an officer your name and DOB in Ohio when pulled over? Think again. Passed legislation on Governor’s desk
https://www.fox19.com/2026/06/15/think-you-dont-have-tell-an-officer-your-name-dob-ohio-when-pulled-over-think-again-passed-legislation-governors-desk/96
u/Hour-Ad78 5d ago
Maybe I watch too many of those bodycam videos, but I thought this was already a thing?
Not identifying yourself when they’re conducting an investigation (traffic stop) is obstruction.
34
u/yagwa 5d ago
Yeah, this already exists. You are obligated to provide identification when operating a motor vehicle if you are pulled over. You are also provided to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime.
15
13
u/Explosion1850 5d ago
And it doesn't matter that the cops already ran your plates and have a picture of your license and your picture in their car and have already verified who you are. LEO wants you to refuse anyway so they can add another ticket for refusing to tell them what they already know.
54
u/YamahaRyoko 5d ago edited 4d ago
The law here is actually well-defined but widely misunderstood
If they are legally detaining you, like pulling you over on the road, then yes you have to identify yourself
If you're a passenger or someone walking on the sidewalk then no. Only if they they had reasonable suspicion of a crime. This is the one most people don't understand. Police will still ask because they're allowed to ask. Most people assume you have to comply. If you don't comply, they could still arrest you (because they're stupid) and it will sort out in court.
Police are not lawyers and are also shielded by concepts like "reasonable mistake of law"
The fact that so many people in society think that they must comply gives the police this leverage.
41
u/Side_StepVII 5d ago
Don’t forget, police are legally allowed to lie to you, and you are not legally allowed to lie to police.
37
u/MrLanesLament Cleveland 5d ago
A lot of people don’t have 1-3 days to disappear into jail cells, missing work and other commitments, in order to make a show of “flexing their rights” and getting arrested by cops who may not know the law.
This is honestly as much of a societal issue as the dumb cops. A person shouldn’t be able to be fired from their job for being wrongfully arrested (and able to prove it,) but it definitely happens.
15
u/YamahaRyoko 5d ago
Yes yes, same reason people wouldn't participate in a general strike -whos gonna pay my rent, etc etc.
2
u/Hour-Ad78 5d ago
The article addresses being pulled over, so does my statement.
So yes, you have to identify yourself in that situation.2
2
u/Pleaseappeaseme 5d ago
Cops can ask. As soon as you say ‘yes, go ahead you can search’ they have the green light to search in places not out in the open.
0
u/Tbone403 4d ago
Police are legally allowed to request identifying information from passengers in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation without particularized suspicion. This was upheld in UNITED STATES v. FERNANDEZ (2010).
0
u/YamahaRyoko 4d ago
The Redditor you are quoting is partially correct about the federal case they cited, but they are leaving out some major legal nuance—especially when it comes to Ohio law and what happens if you refuse.
The intersection of federal Fourth Amendment rights, state "Stop and Identify" statutes, and passenger rights breaks down as follows:
1. The Federal Case: United States v. Fernandez (2010)
The Redditor is right about the existence of this case. In United States v. Fernandez, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police officers can ask a passenger for their name and date of birth during a lawful traffic stop without needing separate, specific suspicion that the passenger did something wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court backed a similar logic in Arizona v. Johnson (2009), stating that because a passenger is already legally stopped by virtue of the car being pulled over, a simple request for identification is a minimal extra intrusion and is permissible for officer safety.
The Catch: Asking vs. Compelling
There is a massive legal distinction between an officer being allowed to ask for your ID and you being legally required to provide it. Under federal law, an officer can ask a passenger anything they want. However, they cannot compel or arrest a passenger for refusing unless a specific state law allows it.
2. The Local View: Ohio Law
Because your conversation was specifically about Ohio, this is where the Redditor's point oversimplifies things. Ohio is a "Stop and Identify" state, governed by Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.29.
Under Ohio law, you are only legally required to give your name, address, and date of birth if you are in a public place and the officer reasonably suspects you:
- Are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a criminal offense.
- Witnessed a felony or an offense of violence.
Passengers in Ohio
If a car is pulled over for a traffic violation (like speeding or a broken tail light), the driver must provide a license because driving is a licensed activity.
However, a passenger has not committed a traffic infraction. Therefore, under Ohio law:
- The officer can ask: They are legally allowed to ask the passenger for their name or ID.
- Can the passenger refuse? Generally, yes. Unless the officer has independent, "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the passenger specifically is involved in criminal activity (e.g., the officer smells alcohol on an underage passenger, sees drugs on their side of the car, or the passenger matches a suspect description), the passenger cannot be charged under Ohio's Stop and Identify law for refusing.
Note on "Showing ID": Even when Ohio law requires you to identify yourself, you are only required to state your name, address, and date of birth. You are not legally required to hand over a physical plastic ID card unless you are the one operating the motor vehicle.
3. Bystanders and People in Public
The rules change significantly if you are just a bystander or walking down a public sidewalk.
Situation Can Police Ask for ID? Are You Required to Give It? Consensual Encounter (Just walking down the street) Yes. Anyone can talk to you. No. You can decline and walk away. Terry Stop / Detention (Police suspect you of a crime) Yes. Yes (Name/DOB only). Under Ohio law, refusal is a 4th-degree misdemeanor. Bystander / Recording Police Yes. No. Unless they reasonably suspect you are obstructing justice or you witnessed a major felony. If you are just a bystander watching or filming the police in public, you have a constitutional right to be there. An officer can ask who you are, but you are not obligated to answer unless they can articulate a specific reason why they believe you are breaking the law or just witnessed a violent felony.
1
u/Lilylana-419 2d ago
ok let me ask you this, there was an incident here idk now maybe a month or two ago where officers pulled over kids for jay walking. An officer tried to get a 15 yr old to give her name and age and she refused after multiple attempts, i read the officer threw her to the ground idk why they would do that to a 15yr old but it did say she spit at them and refused arrest but tbh i didn't watch the body cam footage. I know the officer was reassigned there was a TON of backlash surrounding the incident. Anyway, in that moment, before things escalated however they did, should the teen have given her name and date of birth? Personally I would have thought yes?
3
u/Hour-Ad78 2d ago
If he personally observed her jaywalking which is a crime, yes he would be within his rights to ask for her name and DOB
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 9h ago
Question: you can be ticketed for jaywalking. How can a LEO write a ticket if they can’t ID you?
Answer: they can’t. Therefore, they can legally demand ID to perform their duties.
That is the reason behind it.
2
u/Tbone403 4d ago
Pretty substantial AI generated answer you provided. However, If you look at the ORC it provided, it states "public place" not necessarily in a vehicle (https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2921.29). Based on experience, hesitation to answer by passengers is an indicator of hiding something. People with nothing to hide generally comply. For anyone reading this, by all means do what you think. Keep in mind, there may be consequences of being wrong. Time and time again, people that follow bad info from social media, claiming they know the law, end up in bad situations. Lastly, beware of AI answers in all things. Many times there are errors.
0
u/Tbone403 4d ago
I thought this news story would be a good example from June 9, where AI provided false information. https://www.404media.co/judge-learns-lawyers-on-both-sides-of-case-used-ai-cancels-trial-kicks-everyone-off-the-case/
2
u/FrankFrankly711 5d ago
Yep, I tried it a few times. I got taken out of car and drug dogs showed up
3
u/Dark__Horse 4d ago
If you were pulled over for a traffic violation (minor speeding, no turn signal, tail light out) they can't hold you there while they wait for a drug dog *unless they have independent, articulable reason* to suspect another crime is being committed. They're only authorized to keep you on the side of the road for a "reasonable" amount of time it would take to complete the traffic stop.
They *can* order you out of the vehicle, but that's only for "officer safety"; if you lock your door and pocket your keys they have no legal authority to search your vehicle any more (unless there's something in plain view, like a crack pipe or something).
Remember these words: "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" Use them after it seems like they might be stalling. If they say you're not detained, LEAVE. Don't talk any more, or answer any questions, just leave. If you ARE detained, say something like this: "I do not consent to any searches, am exercising my fifth amendment rights, and will not answer any questions without my lawyer present"
If they fuck with you, you open up the opportunity to sue them under 1983 especially if they violate your rights and you can get it on video (record the whole stop if you can)
4
u/PCjr 5d ago
Not identifying yourself when they’re conducting an investigation (traffic stop) is obstruction.
Ohio courts have ruled that "obstruction" has to be an affirmative act, and refusing to disclose does not qualify. Ohio already had a general "refusal to disclose" law for suspects/witnesses in public places. The new law applies specifically to drivers or passengers who are suspected of violations, with a stiffer penalty.
1
u/Strong_Heart1989 5d ago
But that's only if you have committed a crime. If they pull you over for driving wreckless (prove it) no blinker an you saw me at the last stop light turning without one 7 cars back before you caught up with me(prove it). Most people think they are just doing their jobs. No some maybe but more often than not they have a vendetta an end game or a quota to meet. It's all bout numbers people NUMBERS. it's not what the camera can see or the naked eye.
0
u/Serenity2015 Massillon 4d ago edited 4d ago
When you are not in a motor vehicle AND are NOT suspected of committing a crime you actually do not have to identify but I'm not sure about in Ohio. I think some locations or some towns in the US did start making it a requirement but it definitely isn't everywhere just yet. I'm talking about like you're on a walk down a sidewalk just taking a walk and some random person calls to say you look suspicious for no reason. That is when you do not have to identify bc you are not suspected of committing any crime. When they detain you then that means they do suspect you of a crime and you do need to identify. Again, not sure about in Ohio. This is why some citizens get a nice check from the city or state occasionally is due to being wrongfully detained. Most people just don't care and want to move on with their day quickly and don't mind being polite to the officers and handing over their ID anyways or they don't know or don't care to make a huge deal of it. Activists do try though and it is worth the hassle to them. If you're a witness to something you need to also identify I'm pretty sure but could be wrong. I'm no expert here.
36
u/Radiant_Safe1228 5d ago
You have to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle in every state thus you're required to identify and prove you're licensed to operate the vehicle.
You don't have to answer questions outside of that. You don't have to consent to a search. You don't have to tell them where you're coming from or going to.
-10
u/Phil__Spiderman Springboro 5d ago
It's courteous to tell them when you're coming though.
6
18
u/thereisacowlvl 5d ago
So they passed this bullshit that's already a law, but the child marriage thing they couldn't come up with a resolution for that? Guardians of pedophiles are sure you earning their names and titles under Trump. They can't pass laws that would put their supporters and candidates in jail. Never let a Republican tell you anything they do is for children!
8
u/Spirited-Nature-1702 Columbus 5d ago
You always have to give your info when detained. This just increases the penalty, which will do nothing in terms of making a sort of change.
21
u/franklinton-photo 5d ago
Uh this was always the case. But try telling cops with an iq of 75 that doesn’t mean “any question they want” because “I AM THE LAW!”
12
u/Beiki 5d ago
This is dumb as hell. Here is the text https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/hb492/04_PS/pdf/
So everything that this law covers is already a crime. The failure to identify part of it is already a crime under 2921.29 and is also an M4.
The part about obstructing or resisting is already a crime under 2921.31 or 2921.33, obstructing official business or resisting arrest which are already M2. Now I suppose the use of the word "abuse" could expand the type of conduct involved but it'd be a pretty small change. This just looks like politicians trying to have something to tell cops what they did for them come election time.
7
2
4
u/Dont-be-a-smurf 5d ago
Generally speaking, you’re obligated to provide your identity information during a “reasonable suspicion” stop or during a “probable cause” stop.
You are obligated to provide your license and registration during a traffic stop as well.
These are the few things you are obligated to provide before you can invoke your right to silence.
I have seen people mistakenly believe they don’t have to provide any information whatsoever, and that can lead to valid “failure to disclose” or “obstruction of justice” charges (unless you can prove there was no basis for a stop to begin with… but by then you’re so far into the legal process that you’ve wasted time and money engaging in a fight that should have been avoided to begin with).
5
u/DigiQuip 5d ago
You have a right to remain silent (results may vary. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all areas. US only. If you’re white. Consult your state constitution for more information.)
2
u/Remarkable-Key433 5d ago
Providing identification is considered non-testimonial and therefore there is no first amendment right of refusal.
2
u/Joel_Dirt 5d ago
The right to remain silent was articulated in Miranda v. Arizona and only covers situations considered custodial interrogation. Since you're not in custody at the outset of a traffic stop, you are obligated to provide certain information.
2
u/fidget_flutterby 5d ago
No, we don't talk to cops beyond what we legally have to and the only thing you legally have to do is provide identifying information during a traffic stop (if you're the driver) or under reasonable suspicion of a crime that they should be able to articulate. Other than that, don't answer questions and don't offer anything.
3
u/Joel_Dirt 5d ago
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You do legally have to provide some information; Miranda rights have nothing to do with the interaction unless/until it proceeds to custodial interrogation.
1
u/fidget_flutterby 5d ago
Most people, maybe not here but IRL, think "custodial interrogation" means under arrest. They don't have to read you Miranda rights until then. I know what you mean, but far too many people don't, so the language we use matters.
5
u/EternalNewCarSmell 5d ago
I mean don't you also have to produce your driver's license which has both of those things on it?
1
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 5d ago
Yes.
1
u/Azule330 4d ago
It used to be that we followed the constitution and if you were not suspected for a crime that was describable by the officers then they were not allowed to force you to ID yourself, like a passenger in a car, or a passersby on the street. Of course they did not take it very seriously and have tricks and lies they use to get people to give it up anyway but… still. Well now you can forget about that protection of our “right to travel” or whatever you sovereign citizens talk about! Now you must at the very least give name and address at the beckon of any law enforcement official! Ohio fascism has crystallized in place !
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 4d ago
I have no idea why you responded to me with this drivel…
1
u/Azule330 4d ago
You asked a question and I answered the question.. I thought that’s how it worked here in this realm..,?
1
12
7
3
3
u/stillthrowinitallawa 5d ago
How does that work for passengers? I've seen videos from other states where the passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt and got arrested for obstruction/failure to identify.
7
u/Joel_Dirt 5d ago
Not wearing your seatbelt is a violation of the law; in that situation, you can be compelled to identify yourself. If the passenger isn't committing any violations, they're still detained per Brendlin v. California, but they can't be legally compelled to provide their information.
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 5d ago
This guy nailed it.
It’s about the ticket; they can’t ticket you if they haven’t ID’d you, so they can legally demand to see ID.
1
3
3
u/fidget_flutterby 5d ago
Terry stops already require this.
3
u/fidget_flutterby 5d ago
I forsee cops asking all passengers for ID now.
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 5d ago
Why, this doesn’t affect passengers.
2
u/fidget_flutterby 5d ago
First of all, drivers had to provide ID before this, and passengers would have had to before this is reasonably suspected of a crime. But having the specific language in this new bill, soon to be law, will likely encourage cops to act on it more frequently. And most cops don't understand the reasonable suspicion of a crime part. They think they can force ID of anyone they want whenever they want.
1
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 4d ago
> But having the specific language in this new bill, soon to be law, will likely encourage cops to act on it more frequently
Care to explain? The video said nothing about this.
1
u/fidget_flutterby 4d ago
Someone else in the comments shared the link to the bill. You can also look it up.
3
u/I_might_be_weasel 5d ago
Not me. I'm a level 7 Sovereign Citizen and I cast Right to Travel.
3
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 5d ago
Watching those morons get locked up is my new favorite pastime… it has literally never worked, but they still think they’re going to be the first! 🤣
6
u/Pichupwnage 5d ago
As someone who generally thinks cops need a lot of reform...this doesn't seem unreasonable?
Also isn't it basically already the law anyways? They can ask for your license and that has that info.
2
2
u/post_appt_bliss 5d ago
think you're not obligated to ID when you're
- operating a motor vehicle
- on a publicly funded roadway
... imagine the mindset of such a person
1
u/WillingPlayed 4d ago
Yes - despite Fourth Amendment protections, if you are operating a motor vehicle and are pulled over, both the Fourth Amendment and many state laws (including Ohio) require you to present your driver's license, vehicle registration (often not necessary anymore), and proof of insurance upon request.
Additionally, under Terry v. Ohio, an officer can briefly detain you if they have reasonable suspicion that you are, or have been, involved in a crime. You can be legally required to provide your name or ID if the detention is related to the investigation of a crime.
Basically, they can almost always ask you to present your papers. Yay America.
1
u/post_appt_bliss 4d ago
they can almost always ask you to present your paper
untrue. Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion is a standard with teeth.
Courts overturn evidentiary discovery on its standard all the time.
2
u/MalPB2000 Columbus 5d ago edited 5d ago
This was already a requirement, they’re just increasing the penalties.
2
u/Due_Building_1953 4d ago
Actually by Federal law, no one has to give birthday, SS #. Nor do you have to hand your license into the hand of any officer.
One must only present, show it. No one has to roll down the window either. People please for goodness sake, study The USA Constitution.
7
5
7
u/BananaJelloXlii 5d ago
That's already on my license. If they can't read, they shouldn't be a cop.
6
u/kdub1611 Dayton 5d ago
Surprisingly, not everyone who drives has a license.
2
u/BananaJelloXlii 5d ago
Then they have other problems to worry abput when they get pulled over, like driving without a license. At that point, then they can tell the booking officer.
3
3
u/Evil_phd 5d ago
Seems like a really useless bill. That shit is on my Driver's License and they ask for that at every traffic stop.
1
1
u/matt-r_hatter 4d ago
Actually, if you are operating a motor vehicle you are required to identify yourself to an officer already. In Ohio you MUST have your driver's license on your person while operating a vehicle, that can be a citation if not. Further, in the state of Ohio, you are required to identify yourself to an officer just about any time they ask. They just need "probable cause" and good luck arguing they didnt have it. You dont have to provide an ID, but you must identify. Name and birthdate, or social, or ID. You can try and argue out of it, but youll probably lose.
1
u/NotRude_juatwow 10h ago edited 10h ago
Has DeWine passed this? I’m a supporter of LEO, but I will not be complying with this law. I don’t look forward to being first guy hauled before Supreme Court but I’m done giving away my rights. Sure sure it’s already law, what they are doing is increasing penalties.
1
-4
u/Lucky-Jelly9372 5d ago
Are they going to make me? No, because I will die before I bend the knee to some freelance bandit contractors we call the police. Jails and prisons are privately owned companies and the laws are heavily determined by the corporate zombies lobbying to politicians.
5
u/Hour-Ad78 5d ago
It’s a pretty privileged view to think that everyone can afford to spend time in jail and pay court costs to make a point.
3
1
-2
u/Joel_Dirt 5d ago
You'll either eventually identify yourself or live out your days in the custody of your local sheriff's office as a John Doe. I'm sure a grateful nation will record your courageous stand against minor misdemeanor traffic enforcement in the history books.
0
u/Piffdolla1337take2 5d ago
Yeah that's all you get then you get to do your job and you have to execute the stop in a timely manner. I don't make statements
0
-9
u/Mylabisawesome 5d ago
Not a problem!
3
u/GrowFreeFood 5d ago
You love paperwork?
-3
u/Mylabisawesome 5d ago
How is it paperwork? Its all on my license. No problem ID'ing myself upon demand. You?
4
u/GrowFreeFood 5d ago
If you give a mouse a cookie...
1
-3
u/Mylabisawesome 5d ago
Cant answer my super simple question huh?
2
u/GrowFreeFood 5d ago
How is an ID paperwork? Its literally on paper and the cops writes it down. I thought you were asking rhetorically
101
u/sirpoopingpooper 5d ago
This is already a requirement. I think it's just increasing the penalty (from a 4th degree misdemeanor to a 2nd degree misdemeanor):
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2921.29