COLUMBUS, OH—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.

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.