Might a New Ohio Law Outlaw Phones Recording Arrests?

Two Ohio State Representatives, Jeff LaRe and Shane Wilkin, have introduced a new bill that, if passed, would expand the state’s definition of obstructing justice.

House Bill 22, introduced in January of 2021, would change “obstruction of justice” to include the language, “failure to follow lawful order from a law enforcement officer or diverting a law enforcement officer’s attention.”

If Ohio’s House of Representatives passes House Bill 22, it would become illegal to interfere with the duties of a police officer after he or she gives a lawful order. If this lawful order is “put your phone away and stop shooting video of this arrest,” then it could become a punishable crime to record video on a cell phone.

The bill’s sponsors say that law enforcement officers require such legislation to keep Ohioans safe, particularly in the aftermath of Black Lives Matter protests. Criminal lawyers in Cincinnati, Ohio, are watching the progress of this bill carefully, as its passage could open up a new type of criminal charge. If House Bill 22 passes, “obstruction of justice” charges could become much more commonplace, particularly among passersby and witnesses to arrests.

Opponents say that House Bill 22 could impinge upon freedom of speech, and could restrict current efforts underway to reform policing. 

Obstruction of justice would be expanded to include “taunting,” which opponents of the bill say is vague legal language which could be used to describe many types of communication with the law enforcement officers at the arrest scene.

In Ohio’s committee hearings so far on this proposed bill, 30 people testified. Of those 30, 27 were opposed to the bill and its language.

Rep. Tavia Galonski from Akron, told the WKSU 89.7 radio station that, “House Bill 22 would hamper the efforts of individuals who see injustice and believe it should be pointed out.”

As for the “taunting” language that Rep. LaRe and Rep. Wilkin are proposing to add to the state legislation, Galonski said, “One person’s taunt is another person’s attempt to save a life.”

Rep. LaRe represents Violet Township, a suburb southeast of metropolitan Columbus, while Rep. Wilkin represents Hillsboro, 50 miles east of Cincinnati in Highland County.

When introducing the bill on January 21, Rep. Wilkin said, “The purpose of this bill is to not only protect police officers that serve the public everyday but also to protect our citizens from any sort of harm. Any legislation that protects the public and Ohio’s law enforcement officers is good policy in my book, and that’s exactly what this bill does.”

Thomas Quinlan, former chief of police in Columbus, testified in support of House Bill 22 in March. Quinlan mentioned “mentally interfering with an officer” in his testimony.

The bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. LaRe, insisted that “there is nothing in the legislation that prohibits recordings,” but some people have taken issue with Quinlan’s talk of “mentally interfering.”

However, when one person asked if the people shouting at Derek Chauvin during George Floyd’s death would be considered to be “mentally interfering,” Quinlan did not say no.

Criminal lawyers in Cincinnati are wondering how this proposed legislation would change arrests throughout Ohio. One of the main questions pertains to how law enforcement officers would change the way they interact with bystanders. Would police officers threaten to arrest people for speaking to them during arrests? Would a person silently recording video at an arrest scene be considered to be a “distraction,” and there an obstruction?

Civil rights advocates have encouraged LaRe and Wilkin to add language clarifying that recording an arrest could not be considered obstruction.

“My thought is that I don’t think it’s necessary,” said LaRe, “but I’ve asked (the Legislative Service Commission) to draft language for an amendment. I get it. I get the concern. If finding a way to add that eases their concerns, I’m all for it.”