Ohio House Bill 191

Ohio
I wanted to get some opinions of this bill. The way I understand it is if this bill passes they will be able to seize an individuals car for any moving violation. Here are a few clips from the bill that made me concerned. I also posted a link to the entire bill. Does this mean that if you are cought speeding instead of a ticket you could get your car seized? Since it is inconsistent with normal operation of a vehcle on a public road.

The bill expands the definition of "street racing" to also include "any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Also giving officers “Authority to arrest without a warrant”

Under the bill, in addition to any other sanctions, the court must order the criminal forfeiture of the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time the offender committed street racing if either of the following applies: (1) the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time of such violation is registered in the offender's name, or (2) the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time of such violation is not registered in the offender's name but is registered in the name of another person, and the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered or the person in control of the motor vehicle permitted the offender to operate the motor vehicle and that person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the offender would operate the motor vehicle in violation of the street racing prohibition or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.

Link to the bill:
Laws, Acts, and Legislation

I dont have a problem with cracking down on street racing, but they are changing the definition to....well not street racing. Am I missing something?

NGC414 said:

Ohio
I wanted to get some opinions of this bill. The way I understand it is if this bill passes they will be able to seize an individuals car for any moving violation. Here are a few clips from the bill that made me concerned. I also posted a link to the entire bill. Does this mean that if you are cought speeding instead of a ticket you could get your car seized? Since it is inconsistent with normal operation of a vehcle on a public road.

Click to expand...

No, it does NOT include speeding. The Bill does not alter that. Under Ohio law and MOST jurisdictions, simple speeding is a Minor Misdemeanor, NON arrestable, unless you refuse to sign the citation, etc.

The bill expands the definition of "street racing" to also include "any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Click to expand...

I suppose there have been so many incidents of this, they are cracking down.

Also giving officers “Authority to arrest without a warrant”

Click to expand...

The current bill as well as the proposed bill still classifies drag racing as a Misdemeanor of the 1st degree (M-1), first offense. If committed in thier presence, an M-4 and above has always been an arrestable offense.

There are 4 or 5 statutory exceptions in Ohio to the "in presence" requirement for warrantless misdemeanor arrests, this bill simply adds another.

The federal constitution's 4th AM has never been ruled on that a crime must be committed in the officers presence to be arrestable, felony or not. It is up to an individual state to determine that under thier Criminal Code.

They make allowance for Due Process of law, called Due Course of law under Ohio's Constitution, to be heard before final forfieture.

NGC414 said:

Ohio
I wanted to get some opinions of this bill. The way I understand it is if this bill passes they will be able to seize an individuals car for any moving violation. Here are a few clips from the bill that made me concerned. I also posted a link to the entire bill. Does this mean that if you are cought speeding instead of a ticket you could get your car seized? Since it is inconsistent with normal operation of a vehcle on a public road.

The bill expands the definition of "street racing" to also include "any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Also giving officers “Authority to arrest without a warrant”

Under the bill, in addition to any other sanctions, the court must order the criminal forfeiture of the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time the offender committed street racing if either of the following applies: (1) the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time of such violation is registered in the offender's name, or (2) the motor vehicle the offender was operating at the time of such violation is not registered in the offender's name but is registered in the name of another person, and the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered or the person in control of the motor vehicle permitted the offender to operate the motor vehicle and that person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the offender would operate the motor vehicle in violation of the street racing prohibition or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.

Link to the bill:
Laws, Acts, and Legislation

I dont have a problem with cracking down on street racing, but they are changing the definition to....well not street racing. Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

The bill is so vague that it will struck down by any competent judge.

wrongsometimes said:

The bill is so vague that it will struck down by any competent judge.

Click to expand...

I don't see element vague in it, at all!

BOR said:

I don't see element vague in it, at all!

Click to expand...

This: "any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation" leaves a citizen in the dark in respect to acceleration.
If you ask 10 people what this means you would get 10 different answers - and that examples the vagueness of the statue. Acceleration is quantity that can be measured; however, the law does not give any values. In fact, one could argue that the slow pace & acceleration with some elderly drivers drive at would be inconsistent with normal operation. And going 75 MPH on a highway is consistent with the normal operation of a vehicle .. so 75 MPH would be OK in an alley? You have to look at the law's provisions with strict review not a liberal one (oh, this is what they meant to say).

wrongsometimes said:

This: "any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation" leaves a citizen in the dark in respect to acceleration.

Click to expand...

I see the generalness of your statement, but street racing is well defined:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds.

If we combine the two:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds OR any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Exhibition of speed is generally known as "peeling out".

IF we apply the statutory doctrine of ejusdem generis, which Ohio follows, the "acceleration" in the original definition, follows the "acceleration" defintion in the added definition.

I see your argument, but it is not as vague to me as it is to you.

If the entire defintion is codified, it only takes a "reasonably prudent" person, accordingly to the law, to apply the definition.

BOR said:

I see the generalness of your statement, but street racing is well defined:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds.

If we combine the two:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds OR any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Exhibition of speed is generally known as "peeling out".

IF we apply the statutory doctrine of ejusdem generis, which Ohio follows, the "acceleration" in the original definition, follows the "acceleration" defintion in the added definition.

I see your argument, but it is not as vague to me as it is to you.

If the entire defintion is codified, it only takes a "reasonably prudent" person, accordingly to the law, to apply the definition.

Click to expand...

I see your point but I think the operand of "OR" would make just that one phase enforceable. If it passes I'm sure we would see this argument made & ruled upon. Laws are passed all the time with words like "type" when talking about guns (ex: AK-47 type) and these are almost always ruled on with the striking of the word "type" bu the police continually enforces non AK-47s because of this "type" still being in the law. The best thing a gov't can do is nothing.

I just wanted to give an update on the bill. I got ahold of Ted Celeste, the man who is behind the bill. They are amending it to remove the paragraph in reguards to expanding the definition of street racing. I assume the reason is because it was to vague.

BOR said:

I see the generalness of your statement, but street racing is well defined:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds.

If we combine the two:

"Street racing" means (1) the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to out-distance each other, or (2) the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive accelerations or speeds OR any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway."

Exhibition of speed is generally known as "peeling out".

IF we apply the statutory doctrine of ejusdem generis, which Ohio follows, the "acceleration" in the original definition, follows the "acceleration" defintion in the added definition.

I see your argument, but it is not as vague to me as it is to you.

If the entire defintion is codified, it only takes a "reasonably prudent" person, accordingly to the law, to apply the definition.

Click to expand...

That above bold text is not always true, ask any police officer and they will tell you if they see one car accelerate faster than another they consider this "Exhibition of Speed," and you do not need to exceed the speed limit either.

If you search this forums and others you will see that people were given tickets for racing simply because the officer felt the person accelerated too fast or better yet the tires broke lose on gravel or some thing on the road, or the exhaust tone was loud(which means the cars was going fast).

These laws are intentional written vague and allows the officer lots of latitude to pull someone over because they believe they maybe a racer. The officer is not required to prove anything other than he believes the person was trying to show off speed.

Here is the example I use and have asked people and the answers varies and most times the answer is "it depends" (depend on what, how the officer feels that day) or they will know it when they see it.

Take this specific text in mind which does appear in many street racing laws.

OR any exhibition of speed or acceleration that is inconsistent with the normal operation of a vehicle on a public road, street, or highway.

Click to expand...

My car can go form zero to 60 in 4.9 second with out spinning the tires, as such it out accelerates 90% of the cars on the road. This is from the factory no modifications what so ever. On any given day I out accelerate most cars either form a stop light or while passing or merging on highway. Keep in mind many time I never exceed the posted speed limit but I did put distance between me and other cars to your definition above. To put one more condition on this which is out of my control, others attempted to catch up or pass me. ( I can not control what others do with their car)

So am I street racing or show exhibition of speed, however, it is not "inconsistent with the normal operation" of the car since the car by design is made to accelerate this fast. How about a corvette, which some of them can go zero to 60 and 3.9 second, are they show exhibition of speed ever time they press on the gas to pass someone.

This is where the law us vague, no where does it define what is not allow in the way of acceleration. They tell you how speed you are allow to go but why not say you can not accelerate faster then x Ft/(sec*sec). Because there is no law that say I can not accelerate as fast as my car is design to go, I just can not exceed the speed limit or drive reckless and accelerating fast in my car is not outside it normal operating conditions.

To be Constitutionally vague, the law must be so ambiguous, a person of ordinary intelligence could not even ascertain if he were breaking the law.

I have a citation for that from SCOTUS, but I am at the library and do not have it in my head.

I am not talking about Ohio Construction of statute laws now, as I am not too familiar with them unless researched.

I do know though, under Ohio law, a law enacted is "presumed to be Constitutional".

I am not totally disagreeing with wrongsometimes, but I personally see no problem with the language of the proposed bill. He did say they dropped the added defintion though. Maybe they consulted the Legislative Counsel or the OAG.

An officer though if he wants to, as we all know, can stretch any law in a way for self gratification.

We have a law in some cities in Ohio called "Full time and attention".

Meaning just what it says, no person shall operate a vehicle without giving it thier FTA.

Now if a person were changing radio stations or eating, is he giving it his FTA?

Yet under the Ordinance, is he?? Are these Ordinances vague?

I have not read the entire bill, but just as an FYI, CA has had a similar law for a very long time without any great problems. We have been able to impound a car for up to 30 days as a result of reckless driving, racing, exhibition of speed, etc., for most of my career.

BOR said:

To be Constitutionally vague, the law must be so ambiguous, a person of ordinary intelligence could not even ascertain if he were breaking the law.

I have a citation for that from SCOTUS, but I am at the library and do not have it in my head.

I am not talking about Ohio Construction of statute laws now, as I am not too familiar with them unless researched.

Click to expand...

I found the case I was thinking of, an Ohio case:

We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. . . ." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).

PALMER V. CITY OF EUCLID, 402 U. S. 544 :: Volume 402 :: 1971 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez


It is more no than yes in my opinion the Bill would be struck down.

BOR said:

I found the case I was thinking of, an Ohio case:

We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. . . ." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).

PALMER V. CITY OF EUCLID, 402 U. S. 544 :: Volume 402 :: 1971 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez


It is more no than yes in my opinion the Bill would be struck down.

Click to expand...

Gee love that law... it is illegal to be a "suspicious person" i guess every person coming through that town at night would be subject to arrest in that town...

If you have not figure out the girl was a prostitute and he was john and was not interest in his name showing up as being arrested for solicitation, but is got caught in the "suspicious person ordinance"

You just got to love small towns...

Yes the bill would/could be stuck down, but after how many people loosing their cars and paying thousands of dollars only to find out the law was not valid in the first place.

I was told that legislators do not care whether the laws they past are valid or constitutional they will tell you that it is up to the court to figure that out. Legislator pass laws to get re-elected and make people feel like they are doing something,when the courts say the law is bad they turn around and say see I did my part but the courts threw out the law, it is their fault.

CdwJava said:

I have not read the entire bill, but just as an FYI, CA has had a similar law for a very long time without any great problems. We have been able to impound a car for up to 30 days as a result of reckless driving, racing, exhibition of speed, etc., for most of my career.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can write bills to impound/take almost anything they wish, if they desired. What I like is when they take someone's firearms & melt them down before the case is over & if "not guilty", aahh sorry, we melted down your guns hoss. Too bad. The law in CA must be clearer than these folks in Ohio want. Odd, because Ohio folks are typical midwesterners - they generally want the gov't to leave them alone. Must be a recent crop of politicians who thinks they need to improve us. Who hasn't raced at one time or another even if just messing around?

YouTube - Hank Williams Jr. All My Rowdy Friends Tribute Video

wrongsometimes said:

Who hasn't raced at one time or another even if just messing around?

Click to expand...

Uh ... me.

Even seen the results of a couple guys in cars "just messing around?" Me. Those kinds of nightmarish images don't go away. Care for the gruesome details?