Summary#
HB 1033, titled “Prohibit unlawful dissemination of peace officer’s personal info,” would add a new criminal-offense section to Ohio’s Revised Code. Its stated goal is to prohibit certain harmful online disclosures of peace officers’ personal information. The bill is introduced, so it is not law; the supplied text gives no start date.
- Any person who intentionally posts or otherwise discloses a peace officer’s identifying information to a public internet site or forum could commit the offense—but only if all the bill’s conditions are met.
- The disclosure must be intended to harm or harass the officer, or made with reckless disregard for specified risks. It must also cause one of several stated harms, be intended to cause a substantial disruption to the officer’s life, and identify the officer from the information itself.
- “Personally identifying information” includes items such as an address, phone number, government identifier, financial or health information, and school or employment locations.
- The bill makes a violation a third-degree felony. It exempts specified reports of suspected unlawful conduct, certain legitimate investigations, constitutionally protected activity, and providing information to the press.
- Internet, phone, and cable providers are not liable under this section when acting as service providers.
What it means for you#
- Peace officers: The bill would create a criminal-law protection for certain disclosures of their identifying information. It would not cover every disclosure: the required intent, harm, and identification conditions must all be met.
- People reporting or discussing an officer’s conduct: The bill expressly exempts reporting conduct reasonably believed to be unlawful, certain reports to law enforcement, constitutionally protected speech and protest, and providing information to the press.
- The public and press: The bill does not bar all publication of an officer’s personal information. Whether a disclosure falls within the offense or an exception would depend on the bill’s conditions.
- Internet and communications providers: The bill says they are not liable under this section when acting in their capacity as providers. It does not create a process for removing information or require providers to monitor posts.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated public cost or expected savings.
- The bill creates a felony offense but provides no estimate for investigation, prosecution, or other public costs.
- It does not set a fine amount or provide a sentence range; it specifies only the felony degree.
- The bill contains no appropriation or staffing requirement.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the existing Revised Code provisions needed to verify how this new offense would interact with current Ohio law or other protections.
- The bill does not define “substantial life disruption,” “significant economic injury,” or “emotional distress.”
- It does not set out a reporting, investigation, or decision process, or specify timelines or oversight.
- The text gives no effective date. Passage is uncertain because the bill is introduced.
- The bill does not explain how its exceptions would apply in particular cases.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it targets disclosures linked to specific harms, rather than banning all sharing of officers’ information.
- The offense requires several conditions to be met, including an intent to cause substantial disruption to the officer’s life.
- The listed exceptions preserve specified reporting, press, and constitutionally protected activity.
- A felony offense could give authorities a way to respond to disclosures that meet these conditions.
Case against#
- The bill makes the offense a third-degree felony, but the supplied text gives no sentence range or cost estimate.
- Key terms about harm and life disruption are undefined, which could leave uncertainty about which disclosures qualify.
- Because the list of identifying information includes many kinds of personal data, people may be unsure when sharing it crosses the line, even with the listed exceptions.
- The bill does not explain how authorities would assess intent, harm, or the exceptions in a particular case.