Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors seek to clarify Ohio child-enticement law after Ohio Supreme Court ruling
Summary
Representatives Williams and Brennan presented House Bill 168 to narrow Ohio’s child-enticement statute to require unlawful purpose or illicit motivation, aiming to bring ORC 2905.05 into constitutional compliance after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the previous statute overbroad.
Representatives Williams and Brennan told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 168 would amend Ohio Revised Code 2905.05 to require that an alleged enticer act with an unlawful purpose or sexually-motivated purpose to commit criminal child enticement, addressing the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling that the prior statute was overbroad.
Sponsors said the change restores an enforceable child-enticement offense while protecting constitutionally protected, innocuous interactions by clarifying that criminal liability requires unlawful purpose or sexual motivation.
Representative Williams outlined the statute’s history, recounting the Ohio Supreme Court decision in State v. Ramage (2014) and noting practical enforcement problems since the court’s ruling. Williams said the old statute could criminalize benign interactions — the court’s example included offering to help a neighbor child carry boxes — and that the proposed language focuses liability on conduct done for unlawful purposes or with sexually motivated intent.
Representative Brennan said the bill preserves prosecutorial options: an act subject to prosecution under the child-enticement section may also be prosecuted under other sections of Chapter 2905, but the bill prohibits stacking sentences for the same conduct, per advice from members of the prior general assembly. Both sponsors said the change would reestablish a deterrent against potential abductions and human-trafficking recruitment while remaining within constitutional limits.
Ranking Member Isaacson asked why the bill removes an affirmative defense for emergency or reasonable-belief conduct to preserve a child’s safety. Sponsors said they worried that a broad affirmative-defense clause could be abused, shifting the burden to prosecutors; they indicated willingness to consider narrowly tailored emergency exceptions after further discussion.
Committee members raised Good Samaritan concerns and sought language that would avoid chilling bystander rescue in emergencies. Sponsors said they were open to redrafting that portion and emphasized the primary goal: constitutional clarity to allow proactive enforcement against unlawful enticement attempts.
No committee vote was taken; the hearing concluded with the sponsors inviting questions and offering to work with colleagues on technical edits.
