Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee - 3-25-2026

Here. Here. Present.

Here.

Senator Gallagher. Here.

Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 338, also known as Andy's Law. The origin of this legislation traces back to Christmas morning, of 2024, when Correction Officer Andrew Lansing was brutally murdered by an inmate. And I might add, he was beaten so bad, and his face stomped into the concrete that his own wife and family couldn't recognize him. Andy Lansing was a husband, a father, a 10-year U.S. Army veteran, a public servant, and a great American who had dedicated his life to maintaining safety and order within Ohio's correctional system. In the time of his death, the next morning, I went to the prison. I spoke with correction officers and management staff. I have also spoken with staff across the state, and many came to my home to discuss the improvements needed in the ongoing challenges. The reason most came to my home, they were management staff. And when management sees one of their best officers go out the door like Andrew Lansing did, that's when they start telling you the truth of what's going on. What I constantly heard was deeply concerning. They described a system where dangerous drugs are regularly entering our prisons, where assaults on staff occur far too often, and where the consequences are not strong enough to deter that behavior, along with a lack of prosecution and investigations. At the same time, many facilities, especially higher security institutions, are facing critical staffing shortages, with vacancy rates in some cases approaching one in three positions. House Bill 338 is a direct response to the challenges and intended to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. First, the bill strengthens the penalties for most serious acts of violence by expanding aggravated murder to include the killing of correction employees and others interacting on the facilities such as nursing staff, any contract members, kitchen staff, and requiring life without parole in those cases. Currently there are instances where offenders may be eligible for parole for serving as little 20 years 20 years for a similar offense it also increases penalties for assault on correctional settings including mandatory consecutive seven year term for assault or a felonious felonious assault against a correctional staff or others working in or around these facilities these provisions ensure there are clear meaningful consequences for acts of violence and help reinforces deterrence within our institutions. Additionally, the bill enhances penalties for harassment involving bodily substance, and that happens far too often. You'll get a cup of urine through in your face or feces through at you, and we have little repercussions for that. Beyond penalties, House Bill 338 includes operational reforms within the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. It requires the use of K-9 units trained by the High Estate Highway Patrol training facility in Marysville and requires two K-9 units per prison to detect contraband. It strengthens visitation and screening procedures, improves oversights, and allows the department to bring in outside expertise to help address the staffing and retention challenges. The bill removes GTL tablets as currently used in high-security prisons and eliminates higher education in these facilities. So I would like to explain why this is being done. We currently have the GTL tablets. I think they're put in here now by a company called Viapath. What Ohio's Prisons is using now is an Android-based thing. And we have a process called rooted or jailbroken for tablets. That puts them back to the original settings they were before they went to GTL. And once they go back and they're broke like that, that means they no longer work with the prison Wi-Fi system. So how do they communicate? Well, there's a lot of mini phones and contraband phones also in the prisons, and they set up a hotspot. And at that time, they can use these tablets no different than we would use our tablets. I mean, we have drones flew over the prison, dropped drugs in there. The drone takes a picture, emails it to the inmate where to go get your drugs. The inmate can even make payment versus Venmo or other electronic payment issues. Now, I'm not against electronic communication, but we've got to control the communication that comes and goes because the gang activity, I mean, we can communicate with each other. and even if they're not jailbroken, to set up a conference call, all one has to do is call somebody on the outside walls of our prison, and that person can set up a conference call and call all my other friends within the facilities. So that is the issue with the tablets, is we've got to have some type of control on the communications and in the high security prisons we got to try to have better behavior of the people in there Now I not saying we take out all communications for every individual They still have their rights to call home and whoever else But what I saying is we got to control the 24 communication that comes and goes on a daily basis We have felony drug dealers in these places that continue. They find that they can make more money selling drugs in a place like Ross Correctional Institute than they can on the streets of Columbus or Cleveland. And the money is in there. Do not think for a minute that these people are destitute and have no funding because thousands of dollars gets poured in and out of our prisons and drugs, the level of drugs that's overcome. So recently we had a case in Zanesville, Ohio, that involved, I think, six current RCI inmates, and all of them were dealing drugs in there. And it was a complicated case, involved, I think, 27 people and how they were delivering the funds, and it was into the thousands of dollars. I mean, large amounts. Large amounts was coming in. They get pretty sophisticated. They even have a deck of cards that's sealed as if it's a factory sealed deck of cards. They brought meth in by hollowing out the center in our cards and reseal it. And they've even set up LLCs with Amazon. And Amazon has even shipped books in that's got K2. I mean, a book would be worth about more than $8,000 or more. I mean, it's just unreal. You set up a company, and then Amazon ships the book in. And we have caught a lot of it, but there's a ton that we have not caught. And with that, on the higher education level, we have people that go to higher education in order to distribute drugs through the other cell blocks. Now, it's unfortunate that we've got people in our higher education that shouldn't be there. That's the biggest problem. We've got many people that are back in their cells far before the classes are over. Plus, we have bad behavior within our classes. I talked to an instructor from OSP, which is Youngstown's Maxim Security. We had a man come in her class and expose himself. And then when she complained, they took him back to his cell. And the next morning, he's right back in class because he was on a Pell Grant and required to get back to class. I mean, that's some of the things that are going on currently. we need to build in guardrails, but currently we just simply need a break in service. We need an all-out effort to try to get the drugs out of these facilities, and I can't stress enough just how bad things are. I can tell you in December the 23rd, we had a 23-year-old inmate that overdosed and passed away at Ross Correction. Did anybody read about that in the newspaper? You do not. You know, in January, we had well over 200, I think, 271 overdoses just at Ross Correctional Institute in one month. So things is completely out of control as far as our drugs. And that's the main thing. We got to try to get the amount of drugs out of there at least get it lower down to livable controllable levels or we never be able to staff these correction officers like we really want to We're paying through the nose in overtime currently just to staff our prisons, and it's somewhat needless. So finally, the bill ensures that a correction officer is killed in the line of duty. their surviving spouse, has continued access to human health care benefits, provided stability during the incredibly difficult time. Mrs. Lansing's health care coverage was cancelled just five days after her husband's death, something I find deeply disturbing, and I believe Ohio is better than that. At its core, this legislation is protecting the men and women who work in our correction facilities along with the inmates themselves every day in ensuring their safety is treated as a priority. It unfortunately took this loss of a husband and father to bring these issues forward. But we have a responsibility to act. Andy's Law is about honoring the life by making meaningful changes that will help prevent future tragedies. I might add Andy's Law also puts in requirements to be the director of ODRC. And we have requirements to be the superintendent for the highway patrol and other agencies. And I think it makes good sense to have somebody with serious correctional experience to be our direct next director. So thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on our House Bill 338. I respectfully ask your support, and I'll turn it over to my joint sponsor. Thanks, Representative. Thanks, Chair, Vice Chair, Mayor. Thanks for having us. This is a very important topic to us, you guys. This is a very – let's take you back to Christmas of 2024. What were you guys doing? I'd get up, work out, help the wife get some food prepared, get some gifts for the children, grandchildren, and off to our day. Well, this employee, he didn't make it home that night for his Christmas, unfortunately, because of bad policies and procedures. So we need to fix this. Some of this could be handled internally through policies and procedures. Some of it requires law changes. I did have a discussion back during the budgetary process with the director to try to explain these processes and problems, but she didn't listen. So here we are with the legislative fix. The drugs in the prisons are out of control. The violence in the prisons are out of control. And we're responsible for this, you guys. We are responsible to keep inmates safe. And when we don't, we get sued. Trust me, I ran a large jail. Got sued all the time because we have to keep inmates safe as well. And more importantly, we have to keep the guards safe, the corrections officers safe. And it's hard to recruit corrections officers right now due to the culture in the jail or the prisons. It's a bad culture. Nobody wants to work in there. So now we're working on long hours, a lot of overtime, which leads to poor quality of life. They don't get to go home and see their families, right? They're worn out, they get angry, and we still try to hold them accountable to treat inmates the way they need to be treated. It's a difficult job, you guys, but we can fix this. For these Ohioans that work in our prisons, they don't deserve this. Let's help us change this culture. There's a lot in this bill, I'm not gonna go through all of it. Representative Johnson did a pretty good job explaining it. You guys will hear some great testimony from people that work in there. tried and tried to get the director to listen. They beat their heads up against the wall. So I'm confident we can fix this for them. It's our duty and our responsibility, and I'll open it up for any questions. Thanks for hearing us today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for this bill. It truly is something that we need to do. I agree with a lot of the provisions in this bill, and it is a tragedy of what happened to the officer. And so, of course, we want to make sure that we are protecting our officers and our inmates in the prison. My question stems around the aspect of the bill that deals with the level 3 and 4 offenders where we're taking out, of course, the tablets. I understand that. And then there's a higher education piece. My question is, what level of programming, if any, will remain in the prison? I'm a little concerned that if we take everything out for level three and four, that we're going to set up an environment that could be even more dangerous because you're taking out any programming, all hope, and then we're not necessarily preparing them to come back in the communities, which makes all of us vulnerable as well. So you can speak to that piece, please.

Representative, I think we have a follow-up to the education questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So thank you. Your point is clear. I get it. I mean, definitely this is a safety situation. My question specifically is, are we proposing, when you say a break, that there will be no programming for level threes and fours, or will there at least be religious programming? Is there no programming? And then the idea is that if they have good behavior, they will step down to a level two where they will get that programming, or will there be a situation where from a level three, if their time is up, they go directly to the community and they had no programming, and now we have a situation. So I just want to understand that piece.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here. And stop calling me mayor. I'm ranking member. Senator, I appreciate that, but I'm no longer the mayor. The current mayor will probably get upset. Okay. You're a good mayor. Thank you. Thank you. And I do appreciate my colleagues' questions because those two are questions I'm wondering about. I guess the, you know, and I understand and I acknowledge the reason for this legislation, and it's very wide-ranging. So is your focus more on the judicial aspect of increasing penalties or your focus more on managing the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections I would say it both to be quite honest You know outside of this bill we still need to look at enhancing the prosecution in counties that have high amounts of prisons In my home county of Ross County, we have two facilities across the street from each other.

We do have a follow-up. I just want to remind members we have 24 more witnesses today, so if we could keep it, and we will have further hearings on this bill.

Well, to the chair, to the senator, ranking member senator at that, you know, I believe long term, once we could ever get the drug level to a manageable level, that we could staff our prisons and not have such vacancies. You know, Andy Lansing himself that was killed on Christmas morning earned $168,000 last year, and his base salary was just over 60. So that's the kind of money we are spending just to man our prisons and to fully staff them. I believe if we could cut down the overtime amounts that we would actually find great savings. And that's where I see the physical side of this. Plus, we still need to address the prosecution levels of home counties that have such prison populations as, say, Ross does. And in the last budget, I think we put $250,000 to address, to try to help them and assist them and maybe get another assistant prosecutor in these offices. And then also I believe my county could use a third judge and maybe dedicate that judge to domestic cases to free up our other two judges for criminal cases. You know, it's all intertwined together.

Thank you.

Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Paula Hicks Hudson and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 292, which is similar to House Bill 447 sponsored by Brian Stewart in the House. When looking at Senate Bill 292, this legislation will modernize Ohio's statutory caps on non-economic and punitive damage to account for inflationary impacts on Ohioans. Senate Bill 292 provides fairness for injured parties while maintaining balance in the tort system. In the past 22 years, Ohio's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, such as lost enjoyment of life and liberty, pain and suffering, trauma, loss of consortium and emotional distress, I think we can all agree that inflation has increased the cost of living for all Ohioans. Senate Bill 292 simply adjusts the statutory limits across tort actions, medical claims, and actions against political subdivisions and state universities. More specifically, the cap on non-economic damages will increase from $250,000 to $415,000, $350,000 to $580,000 for each plaintiff, and from $500,000 to $830,000 for each occurrence. Similarly, the cap regarding punitive damages for small employers and individuals would be adjusted from $350,000 to $580,000. These new caps were derived by using the Federal Reserve's online inflationary calculator. To avoid addressing this issue again, Senate Bill 292 includes a mechanism for annual adjustments based on the CPI that will be disclosed in a report by the Department of Taxation. This measure ensures that the law stays current, fair, and somewhat predictable into the future. SB 292 is designed to update the caps, not eliminate them, and preserve the structure of Ohio's tort system. When looking at keeping Ohio's competitive business environment, this bill continues to keep the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, businesses, and bar, while continuing to keep Ohio's entrepreneurial environment to attract new businesses. In conclusions, SB 292 is much overdue to ensure that fairness is restored to so many Ohioans who go through traumatic incidents but those were calculated and created back in 2005. This bill will ensure that when a plaintiff is compensated for their damage, they are compensated at the 2026 economic figures. We respectfully ask for your support of SB 292 and welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to adopt Amendment 1896-1. At the request of the sponsors, this amendment creates a new circumstance for obstruction if an individual, after being warned, approaches or remains within 15 feet of an emergency service responder and either interferes with or threatens the responder. The question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Is there any discussion?

Welcome. Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair, Ranking Member, and the members of the committee. My name is Joseph Kitchen, and I serve as the fire chief of the Bath Township Fire Department in Allen County, and I'm currently the president of the Ohio Fire Chiefs Association. Thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on House Bill 20. At its core, House Bill 20 is about ensuring that first responders can do their job without interference when seconds matter most. Across Ohio, firefighters, paramedics, and law enforcement officers are increasingly encountering situations where individuals interfere with emergency scenes, whether by getting too close, disrupting operations, or creating unnecessary distractions. These actions may seem minor, but in an emergency, they can delay life-saving care, increase risk to responders, compromise scene safety for everyone involved. This bill addresses that problem in a measured and reasonable way. It focuses specifically on knowing and intentional interference while still respecting the public's right to observe. From a fire service perspective, this is critical. Our personnel are trained to operate in high-risk environments, high-stress environments, and they are making split-second decisions that directly impact lives. They should not have to defy their attention between patient care and managing preventable disruptions. House Bill 20 provides clarity and reinforces that emergency scenes must remain controlled, professional environments focused on saving lives. This legislation is not about limiting rights. It is about protecting public safety and ensuring effective emergency response. On behalf of the Ohio Fire Chiefs Association and its 2,000 members we represent across the state, I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 20, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Welcome. Hopefully this is working. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, and Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and Committee Members, I'm Mike Wyman, Director of Government Affairs for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding House Bill 20. I'm here as the voice of 23,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, active duty officers, and retirees. House Bill 20 increases the penalty for obstructing official business from a second-degree mismeanor to a first-degree mismeanor. If the victim of the offense is an emergency service responder engaged in lawful duties, and the responder issued a warning before or during any act that hampered or impeded their performance. Why is this important? Increasingly members of the FOP are experiencing threats and menacing behavior from agitators and self First Amendment auditors Harassment and menacing can come from family members friends and community members while officers are attempting to place individuals into custody or perform other lawful actions. House Bill 20 will act as a deterrent, serve as a tool for de-escalation, and be used only against those who attempt to prevent, obstruct, or delay the responder's performance of any authorized act within the responders official capacity again before any enforcement of House Bill 20 occurs a warning must be given to those harassing the officers this bill does not stop anyone from filming the officers it does however stop the harassers from shoving a camera in officers face and all too common tactic nothing in the bill prevents them from zooming in on their cameras something all modern devices can do thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of House Bill 20, the FOP respectfully requests that the committee report

First question goes to ranking member Hicks-Hudson. Thank you so much for your testimony, and I appreciate the perspective. I'm just wondering about with this enhancement for a specific category of first responders, do you see this as possibly causing some kind of conflict or confusion in terms of sentencing, for example, if it's not a medical emergency and it's the police officers handling and doing their normal business, will they be, will they have the same type of, not for them, but will the offender be charged with this offense or would they be charged under the original obstructing

Seeing no further questions, thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you. And this will stand as the second hearing on, or excuse me, members, please note written proponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ohio Municipal League, Attorney General, Northern Ohio Firefighters Association, and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. And this will stand as the second hearing on House Bill 20. I'll now pass the

Good morning. Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee, thank you for providing the opportunity to deliver sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 393 to increase penalties for certain sexually oriented offenses involving juvenile victims. This legislation is a result of multiple revisions and is the culmination of bill drafts of both my office, Senator Blessing, as well as my joint sponsor, Chairman Manning, and his staff. For the purpose of my testimony today, I will focus on the policy changes stemming from my initial draft, and Chairman Manning will testify in detail about provisions from his draft. Last summer, I was informed by a local police chief that many offenders who were convicted of selling or otherwise distributing or possessing large quantities of child sex abuse material were not receiving harsher sentencing than those with lesser quantities of such material I was alarmed to learn that in many jurisdictions, convicted offenders are often back on the streets less than 48 hours after the arrest and upon conviction, rarely to see the inside of a prison cell. Upon further review of the Ohio Revised Code, my office, in consultation with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, identified areas of the law which warrant revision. The purpose of this bill is to update relevant sections of the revised code to ensure offenders who create, distribute, offer for sale, or otherwise promote the dissemination of such materials receive harsher sentences based on a variety of factors. Those factors include the quantity of material, the subject matter of the material, and the age of the victim. For example, under current law, ORC 2907.321, pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person, an offender is in violation of Division A1, which is the creation of material, two, promotion, three, create direct performance, four, advertise, and six, transport into the state, is charged with a felony of the second degree. If the material involves a minor, a violation of Division A3, possession of material, is a felony of the fourth degree, but steps up to a felony of the third degree for repeat violations. Under this legislation, a violation of Division A1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 is still a felony of the second degree. However, we have added artificially generated depiction of a minor to the base charge and added an enhancement if the offense involves a minor under the age of 13, an artificially generated depiction of a minor under the age of 13, and if the material depicts an offense of violence. Additionally, for a violation of A5 possession, we included a similar mandatory sentence for a violation that involves a minor under the age of 13 in offenses of violence, as well as a specification that is triggered if the offender possesses 100 or more images, which requires a mandatory five-year prison term to be served consecutively to the base charge. If the nature of the offense triggers the enhancement, the charge bumps to a felony of the third degree. It is also important to note that under current law, Ohio does not properly account for video of child sex abuse material. This legislation adds language to address that shortcoming by equating one video with 75 images, which is the current federal standard. If an offender is in possession of more than one video, it would trigger the enhancement for having over 100 images. Similar enhancement language was included in ORC 29.322, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor or impaired person person and ORC 2907 illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance. Additionally, this legislation updates Ohio's law on bestiality. Under current law, the act of bestiality and the sale or purchase of an animal with the intent to engage in sexual conduct with an animal is a misdemeanor of the second degree. The law does not account for the creation, reproduction, or publishing of bestiality material. As such, this legislation makes the following changes to ORC 959.21 and 959.99. A violation of Division B, the actual act of bestiality, or the sale or purchase of an animal with the intent that it be subject to sexual conduct, is now a felony of the fifth degree. A violation of Division C, knowingly organizing, aiding, or abetting bestiality, is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of Division D, knowingly creating, reproducing, or publishing bestiality material, is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A violation of Division E, possession of bestiality material, is a misdemeanor of the third degree. In short, this legislation adjusts sentencing requirements for offenders who create, sell, disseminate, and possess child sex abuse material. It makes common sense updates to bring Ohio in line with federal standards to ensure the most severe offenders receive proportional sentencing. Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony in this important piece of legislation. I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have, but first I will turn the microphone to my joint sponsor, Chairman Manning.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. I think you all may know that before I joined the Ohio legislature, I worked in the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office and specifically on the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. And so I've got a decent amount of expertise in this particular, you know, line of criminal jurisdiction. That being said, the technology has moved beyond my expertise when I was in that role. So I appreciate the attempts of the updates and am generally supportive. But I would just politely ask you all to meet with members of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, because I really do believe that because the U.S. Department of Justice fights these online child exploitation and child pornography crimes through the ICAC task force across the nation. And so I would really say that the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is the subject matter experts in law enforcement in the state of Ohio today. So I would just politely ask that you all seek their counsel. Again, I'm generally supportive of what I read, but the fine line details can get really tricky especially as technology continues to advance So thank you all very much for your work on this Clearly you spent a lot of time on it based on the level of your testimony and would love to hear from ICAC in the committee room at some point

Thank you, and you got it pronounced right the first time. That doesn't happen very often. Mr. Chairman Manning, Vice Chairman Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and other members of the Ohio Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the OSBA in support of House Bill 195. My name is Jeff Ferriero. I'm a retired member of the Capitol University Law School faculty. For 45 years, I taught uniform commercial code courses at Capitol, Ohio State, Ohio Northern, and several other law schools in other states. I'm here today not only on behalf of the OSBA, but also in my capacity as a member of the Ohio Council on Uniform State Laws, which is established by Section 105.21 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Ohio Council, which most of you have probably never heard of before, is probably the single smallest state agency. We have no staff, no office, not even a website, and our minimal budget is used overwhelmingly just to pay our annual dues to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which is comprised of members of other similar state agencies. House Bill 195 is based on a set of complicated and sometimes very technical amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC was first adopted in Ohio in 1962 in revised code chapters 1301 through 1309, and it's been updated and amended many times over the last 64 years to respond to changes in society and changes in commercial business practice. If adopted, House Bill 195 will adapt the Uniform Commercial Code to apply to a variety of electronic commercial transactions dealing with modern types of digital electronic property. It will accomplish this in three significant ways. First, it proposes a completely new article of the Uniform Commercial Code in Ohio to be enacted as Chapter 1314. This new article will provide clear and comprehensive rules governing the transfer of electronic assets including cryptocurrencies non tokens and electronic versions of more traditional assets such as accounts receivables negotiable instruments warehouse receipts bills of lading, and investment securities. Second, it makes major amendments to existing Chapter 1309 to protect lenders who advance funds secured by these types of digital assets. These changes will ensure that these security interests are protected from the risk of bankruptcy and enjoy the same priority over competing creditors that secured lenders have over more tangible assets. Third, it makes an array of other minor changes to other portions of Ohio's version of the UCC, most of which relate to digital versions of traditional types of personal property. These amendments have been approved by the American Law Institute, the American Bar Association, and the Ohio State Bar Association. And over the last few days, a few more states have adopted this legislation, so it's now effective in 34 states and pending now in seven other states. If adopted, it will protect Ohioans who deal with digital assets and Ohio lenders who use them as collateral. These protections will, because of the protection that's given to lenders, will enhance the value of these assets for Ohioans who own them. Thank you for your time and attention, and I'll be happy to answer questions you might have about House Bill 195, the Uniform Commercial Code, or the Ohio Council on Uniform State Laws.

Yeah, well, no, I actually had Professor Tarak for contracts.

Well, so you were one of my sharper students.

Okay, so this is Mr. Chairman Manning. This is one of those very few provisions of this bill that doesn't have anything to do with digital assets. It reflects the fact that the Uniform Law Commission saw an opportunity while it was in the process of adopting all these other things to solve a problem that has arisen throughout the country where all 50 states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. So when a problem arises in the interpretation of the UCC or its application, it's a nationwide problem. The predominant purpose test is a test in Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Chapter 1302 of the Ohio Revised Code, that applies when there's a transaction involving a combination of goods and services. So the example I used teaching this course was you go to get your lawnmower repaired, and they're going to repair the lawnmower and replace the oil and replace the blade. So you're both having some services done and you're purchasing some oil and a new blade. So it's a hybrid transaction. If something goes wrong with the transaction and litigation results, although not many people litigate over badly repaired lawnmowers, the problem comes up of whether the common law applies because it was a services transaction or the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, applies because there was a sale of goods involved in the transaction. The law almost everywhere, and Ohio has one of the seminal cases on this issue, is if the predominant purpose of the transaction was for services, the common law applies to every aspect of the transaction. If the predominant purpose of the transaction was the sale of goods, Article 2 applies to the entire transaction. That created a variety of problems, and this amendment would adjust the predominant purpose test a little bit. If the predominant purpose test is for a sale of goods, Article 2 applies to the entire transaction. If the predominant purpose of the whole transaction was for services, the common law applies except that Article II governing the sale of goods still applies to the goods aspect of the transaction. That usually boils down to the implied warranty provisions of UCC Article 2 governing the transaction, although it can result in a couple of other significant provisions applying. So that's probably the biggest non-digital assets change that it would make. I was glad this is coming up after I'm retired because I always taught that rule as an introduction to the difference between the common law and the UCC. And now it's too hard for brand new first year law students to understand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. So having recently graduated from law school, about to take the bar exam in July, what's the answer?

Seeing no further questions, thank you so much for your testimony. I do feel like we deserve a CLE credit after this. But yes, thank you once again. Thank you very much. Next we'll hear proponent testimony from Andy Nickel on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association as well. Welcome. Welcome.

Thank you, and I'll take any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no questions, thank you once again. Thank you. And next we'll hear proponent testimony from Don Boyd on behalf of the Ohio Bankers League. Welcome.

We appreciate your testimony and see no questions. Thank you once again. I'm looking forward to sharing some more stories from law school. And this will stand as the second hearing on House Bill 195. The next order of business called House Bill 210 for its third hearing. We did not receive any in-person testimony, but please note written opponent testimony from the International Precious Metals Institute, accurate recycling and the legend smelting and recycling. And this will stand as the third hearing on House Bill 210. The next order of business calls Senate Bill 225 for its third hearing. Once again, we did not receive any in-person testimony, but members, please note written interested party testimony from the Ohio Recorders Association. And this will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 225. The next order of business is called Senate Bill 163 for its fifth hearing, and we will now hear interested party testimony from Kevin Schimp on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce Welcome. You sped up on me. And as we're all talking about our former contract professors, Professor Ferriol was mine. And there was a lot of flashbacks right there. Yeah, good times. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hutson,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming here today, Mr. Schimpf. I mean, we've had a number of conversations on this, and I mean, I will say that I have a question and then a comment, but not for you on that. But the first question is, you know, the bill provides obviously a cause of action for an individual who's aggrieved by someone removing a watermark with the purpose of concealing its AI-generated nature. We took an amendment at the last hearing to further limit the prohibition to someone removing the watermark knowingly and with the intent to deceive a third party. If an entity knowingly removes a watermark intending to deceive someone else, why shouldn't they be liable for any damage caused by that deceit? Chairman, to the senator, I think our position is whenever you're going to have a private right of action, we generally look disfavorably on that.

It's more of a comment, and it really isn't directed at the chamber or the business community, but I'm pleased that you put in the AI regulatory framework in your testimony. You probably knew that's like catnip for somebody like me as I've spoken extensively on that because I think it is just unbelievably bad in terms of kind of just saying, hey, the 10th Amendment, we don't really care. We're the White House. We can do whatever we want. And frankly, members of Congress are like, well, I guess we're not legislators. We're employees. We're going to go along with this. I mean, it's deeply offensive what they're doing. But beyond that, you have – and frankly, I think they're going to get sued at some point. And what if the Supreme Court decides they're going to rubber stamp all of that? Well, I hope they go down in flames the same way the Lochner era did. But I do with respect to the AG's office doing this, and yes, and a lot of other states have done that, but I still have an issue with the regulatory capture part of that in terms of it's easy to just say everything goes through the AG's office and they always have to run for election and they can always get a number of donations from big tech and then all they have to do when they're in office is literally nothing. And so the private right of action, I get why the business community wouldn't want that. I mean it would have insurance costs going up for them. Nobody likes to be sued. But the cause of action really is the free market here. There's not a conflict of interest the way that there is with the AG's office, particularly when we're dealing with big businesses like these big tech companies who obviously wouldn't want to be sued in this. So yes, at the risk of that just being a comment, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that. And thank you for testifying. Thank you. Any response?

I see no further questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Appreciate it. Next, we'll hear an arrested party testimony from Tony Long on behalf of the Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice.

and I look forward to some questions from the sponsor. Thank you so much for your time.

Through the chair to the senator, I would offer a short answer and then a longer answer. The short answer would be, obviously, you have a right of action if you've been harmed, and we feel that perhaps the Attorney General, why this is going on, is probably best suited to handle lawsuits around AI generation. The longer answer is, perhaps I have something called Tony's Tire Company, and a competitor of mine notices that I using AI generated on my website hires a third person to take that watermark down by hacking into my website And let say my competitor Wiley I Cody of Acme decides to bring a lawsuit against me and uses that lawsuit to get into my business records, has a settlement, and now can compete unfairly against me. I think it would be a preference that if there is something wrong with the website and perhaps an AI, watermark was removed to figure that out maybe in a different process than a private right of action.

Care to respond?

Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony. Members, please note written proponent testimony on behalf of the National Insurance Crime Bureau and Mary Allager. This will now stand as the fifth hearing on Senate Bill 163. The next order of business is to call Senate Bill 277 for its second hearing, and we will now hear proponent testimony from Christine Vinas on behalf of the Unite for Safe Social Media. Welcome.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Seeing no questions, thank you once again. Next we'll hear a proponent testimony from Zachary Christensen on behalf of the Reason Foundation. Welcome.

Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no questions, thank you once again. Next, we'll hear proponent testimony from Christopher Kendall. Welcome.

We'll grab that from you after the testimony. Sounds great. Appreciate it. Seeing no questions, thank you once again. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next, we'll hear proponent testimony from, and I don't know if you're testifying together or not, but for Mark Wall and potentially Emily Wall as well. Welcome.

Welcome, Emily. Proceed when ready.

Thank you so much for your testimony. No offense to your father or the previous witnesses. I think you knocked that out of the park, though. Seeing no questions, thank you once again. Members, please note numerous individuals for written proponent testimony, including Let Grow and also the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office. And this will stand as the second hearing on Senate Bill 277. The next and final order of business is called Senate Bill 341 for its second hearing. And we will now hear proponent testimony from Pamela. Welcome. And I will just say I apologize for the delay in this bill. And as we're losing some members to other committees, I know they'll be in and out. But if you could try to be as concise as possible and not repetitive, that would be greatly appreciated. But I will be here certainly for the long haul here. So proceed when ready.

We appreciate your testimony. And I don't know how you would like me to give this to you. Yeah, we'll have somebody grab that from you. Okay.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your testimony. It's good to see you, Senator Smith. We'll hear a proponent testimony from Frady Reese on behalf of Unchained at Last. Welcome. Proceed on ready.

Thank you so much for your patience and your testimony Seeing no questions thank you once again Next we hear from Becca Powell also on behalf of Unchained at Last Welcome. Good morning, Chair Manning and Senator Smith.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

So Unchained at Last, we're focused solely on banning forced and child marriage in the U.S. We typically don't engage with legislation that has anything to do with the age of consent to sex. We see it as very different issues. No one needs the full rights of adulthood to consent to sexual activity. you'll hear a little bit later about why that is so important for somebody who is entering into a contract. It's just kind of a separate issue. So you know we are very very firm that the age of consent to marriage be set at 18 and we don have an official position on age of consent to sex as far as I know Appreciate it Seeing no further questions thank you once again

Thank you, Chair Manning and to the entire committee for allowing me to testify today on this important legislation. My name is Michelle Hanash, and I'm an attorney and also the Director of Policy and Women's Programs at the AHA Foundation. We are a survivor-founded nonprofit working to end child marriage and other harmful practices. We also receive help requests from those fleeing forced and child marriage. So I want to talk to you today about how child marriage is inherently dangerous because it is a legal trap. Now, this isn't about maturity. You don't wake up on your 18th birthday all of a sudden with some newfound wisdom and insight. But you do wake up with one thing, which are the full legal rights of adulthood, which are crucial to someone who is fleeing a forced marriage. And without those full legal rights of adulthood, child marriage, marriage itself, becomes a legal trap, even for the most mature 17-year-old. Minors cannot easily leave home to flee a forced marriage. law enforcement can detain them, take them into custody, and must release them to their parents. Or they can take them into a juvenile detention facility or shelter and then notify the parents. But remember, these are also the same parents that are likely forcing that child to marry, as you heard. You'll also hear from local direct service providers that a minor in this situation cannot enter a domestic violence shelter, so they literally have nowhere to go. An adult in this terrifying situation might retain an attorney to help them navigate their legal rights, but a minor can't just easily enter into a retainer agreement with an attorney because contracts with minors are voidable, and attorneys are reluctant to take on minors as clients based on a voidable retainer agreement. On top of all of this, minors cannot independently file legal actions adding to this obstacle. Now, teens are emancipated upon marriage, and that might sound like a good thing, but in reality, emancipation only brings limited rights. And for instance, domestic violence shelters, in our experience, still turn away even emancipated minors. But crucially, whatever rights emancipation brings arrive too late. That teen must first endure the trauma of the forced marriage. They will be raped on their wedding night. That means sexual domestic servitude. that means being pulled out of school. You cannot undo this trauma. You cannot unrape a girl by stamping emancipated across her forehead later. In fact, because of all of this and because minors lack the legal capacity to enter into the contract, around the world, all child marriage is considered forced marriage. And when girls reach out to us and learn of their limited options, they often turn to suicide attempts. Child marriage destroys every aspect of an American girl's life. Her health, her education, her economic opportunities, her physical safety. And for these reasons, the U.S. State Department calls marriage before 18 a human rights abuse. So in conclusion, at a time when the entire country has been focused and outraged by the grooming and sexual exploitation and abuse of girls, you have the opportunity to prevent that. pass SB 341 and stand on the side of the victims instead of the perpetrators.

Thank you.

and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm Lisa DeGieter. I'm the Senior Director of Policy and Prevention with the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, and ODVN is the state's federally designated DV coalition with 76 local programs that we represent. So thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 341, which would stop Ohio children, as people have said before me, from being placed in the untenable position of being a married minor. You've heard from survivors, you'll hear from further survivors, but we wanted to take a moment and explain why this specifically matters to ODVN and our members, and our concerns are philosophical and practical. You've got our written testimony, so I won't rehearse that, but I want to be clear about the study we have. We put one in the written testimony. There are numerous, and what the studies have shown and what the previous speakers have addressed is the fact that when minors marry, DV risk is elevated. So we want to be really, really clear that that is not just during the age of minority. That risk is elevated across the lifespan of that relationship. So that becomes a concern for us and the folks we serve. But that, on the practical level, is the other concern we have, because we struggle to serve these folks. When someone calls a DV program, the speakers before me are exactly right. Just because they're emancipated doesn't mean that for our program's purposes, they're an unaccompanied minor and they need to come in with an adult into shelter. So they are seeking safety and our programs don't have the capacity and practice to provide that. Right now we do things like safety planning. We can offer minimal counseling. there are things that can be done, but there is a pending House Bill 172 that would prohibit the ability to do any unconsented mental health work with minors without a parent's permission. So if that passes, it could limit our ability to serve this population further. What ends up happening is an unaccompanied minor, they get routed into children's services kind of systems that aren't set up to address the issues that they're facing. And as everybody before me has said, if the parent is consenting, those children's child-serving organizations tend to try and reunify kids with parents, and that's not what will be protective for folks here. So what ends up happening is services are delayed, and I know I often stand here and remind folks that I'm the person at ODVN who's responsible for our annual fatality report. And we know that services delayed can have deadly consequences. So that is something that is always a concern for us. So we really appreciate Senator DeMora and Senator Blessing, who've championed this bill, and we do believe if it's passed, it will make Ohio Homes safer. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Mannings and Ranking Member Senator Hicks-Hudson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Teresa Stafford And I am the chief executive officer at Hope and Healing Survivor Resource Center, formerly known as the Battered Women's Shelter and Rape Crisis Center. Our organization has been in existence for over 50 years serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and human trafficking in Summit and Medina counties. I am here in strong support of Senate Bill 341 because child marriage must end in Ohio. Child marriage is not about love or readiness. It is about vulnerability and power. minors do not have the legal autonomy to enter marriages as equals. These relationships often mirror the same dynamics that we deal with every single day when we're addressing domestic violence cases. However, child marriage also sits at the intersection of not only domestic violence but sexual violence. Young people who are married as minors often face higher rates of abuse and are often cut off for support systems, education, and financial independence. What is even more concerning is how our systems respond to these individuals. At Hope and Healing Survivor Resource Center, we are unable to support a 17-year-old calling our hotline and saying they are actively fleeing a domestic violence situation and need emergency shelter because they are 17 years old. If they were to come to our shelter unaccompanied by an adult, we would have to contact Child Protective Services. And if Child Protective Services respond, they would then turn them over to the parents or back to that adult who has guardianship over them. So ending child marriage in Ohio is an opportunity for us to create safer communities and safer families. We know access to crisis shelters, advocacy, and safety planning reduces serious harm of domestic violence homicides, pretty much to what my colleague just stated. Ohio has seen an increase in domestic violence homicides. In Summit County, we had eight last year compared to two the previous year. Ending child marriage is a matter of safety, it is a matter of protection, and it is our responsibility as a community. I urge you to support Senate Bill 341 and ensure that no child in Ohio is placed in harm's way under disguise of marriage. Thank you.

Thank you.

I was waiting for that. All those years of school, you can't believe how much I heard. Kim Herdlicka-Tiggis.

Thank you. Good morning. It's still morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair, and distinguished members, my name is Kim Herdlicka I am the current governor of Zonta International District 5 That encompasses the entire state of Ohio plus Kentucky and West Virginia Zonta is a 106-year-old organization working to build a better world for women and girls. I'm here representing the hundreds of Zonta members in our state, and we strongly urge you to support Senate Bill 341. Zonta International and the USA Caucus are part of the National Coalition to End Child Marriage, led by Unchained at Last. Our organization has been educating the public on the dangerous, lifelong consequences of child marriage since 2018. We, along with UNICEF USA, we do so. Marriage is still an urgent problem in our Buckeye state. You've heard some statistics. We've had over 5,000 minors married in this state from 2000 to 2024. Ninety percent of those were young girls. They were married to men an average of four years or older. You also heard that child marriage continues in Ohio even after our 2019 updated law. This is a national movement. 16 states and two U.S. territories, plus Washington, D.C., have banned child marriage. Most recently, it was Missouri, Oregon, and Maine. There are bills to ban child marriage pending in eight more states, including Kentucky, where a bill recently passed unanimously by the Senate. You also heard there's no residency requirement for marriage in Ohio, so as these many states ban child marriage that surround us, This is making us a destination state for child marriage. You know, Buckeyes, we care about our children. So this is a true example of passing Senate Bill 341, another example of how we can protect our children. Thank you.

That's a great question. My understanding would be the marriage then would still be legal.

Yes. If they moved here, if it was legal in the other state, yes, it would be recognized in the state.

Yeah, Frady. But we're going state by state to ban child marriage. Pennsylvania and every state is going all the way to Maine already have banned child marriage and all the other states that you heard Kim list. So that won't be a problem soon.

Not so much because, as I was saying, 69% of the minors who married before that law passed were age 17, and that's still legal in Ohio. So the rates of child marriage have not really dropped. What we do see is when one state completely bans child marriage, rates in the neighboring states do go up. And since Pennsylvania has done it, they did that in 2020, and so many other nearby states, Ohio's rates might soon start to tick up as well. Thank you for that. Michigan and Kentucky, so they're all around us.

Thank you, and thank you for trying my name.

Chair Manning, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson and members of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee. Hi, I'm Stephanie Lowry. I'm a resident of Cuyahoga County and I live in Chirgin Falls. I am one of the 5,063 minors married in Ohio between 2000 and 2024. My story is an example of a systemic failure that prioritizes legal loopholes over a child's safety. A month after my 16th birthday, I was forced into marriage with a 19-year-old man in Summit County, Ohio. I had just lost my father to brain cancer. He was 42. I was a grieving teenage daughter. After my father's death, my mother, who was more focused on finding a new husband, began viewing my two siblings and me as obstacles. Marriage became her solution, a way to remove a burden. Within months of my father's passing, she arranged for my older sister to be married at 19. My younger brother and I were sent to live with them. When I became pregnant shortly before my 16th birthday, my mother saw a chance to marry me off as well. I was a problem to be handled, not protected. I didn't feel like I had a choice. I felt like a problem that needed to be solved. I stood in an Ohio courthouse at 16. The moment the judge signed the license, the state of Ohio and my mother washed their hands of me. I became a wife, and my 19-year-old husband became my legal guardian, responsible for my safety, my decisions, and my financial support. Without family support or child care, I could not attend school, and my age made securing a job difficult. Becoming a wife on top of the hardship of becoming a teen mother only added to my vulnerability. A pregnant minor needs her parents support to finish school and navigate motherhood not a marriage certificate that fast tracks her into potential violence and poverty And when the abuse began in my child marriage I did try to get help but the statistics were against me I couldn easily access domestic violence shelters. Most won't take a minor. The options given to me were to put me and my son in foster care, but we would be separated. Seventeen is too young to be a mother and too young to be running from a husband. Most of the support programs available required you to be 18. Child marriage does not lead to adult rights. Instead, the signing of a marriage certificate instantly transfers the responsibility for financial support, education, medical care, from the parents to the husband. For me, marriage simply meant gaining a new legal guardian, who is also my abuser, without any legal route to escape until I reach the age of 18. The laws allow for child marriage in Ohio, but the system provides no support after. We allow child marriage because we buy into the illusion of giving a minor choice, yet we don't give 16-year-olds the choice to vote or buy alcohol, recognizing their vulnerability. So why is a marriage contract, a document with lifelong consequences, issued with less restrictions than buying a pack of cigarettes? When I turned 18, I was finally old enough to file for divorce on my own, but the consequences didn't end with the court date. Child marriage shaped every aspect of my life, including the poverty I had to fight through and the sense of safety I had to rebuild from scratch. No child should have to be resilient as I was to reach adulthood. I made it. I built a life. I'm now a partner to a loving husband, and I'm a mother who unconditionally loves and protects her children. I spent years in therapy to understand what happened to me. I also had to support my children through the trauma these circumstances created for them, too. I worked hard to become whole. I'm sharing my story because Ohio must draw a clear line. We must end the exceptions. The law must be 18 years old, no exceptions. We must not allow children to be burdens so easily transferred. Marriage age in the U.S. is set by each state. And in recent years, as you heard, 16 out of 50 states have set the minimum age at 18 without exceptions. So let's make Ohio the 17th state to draw the line at 18, no exceptions. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.