Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee - 4-15-2026

This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Maynard. Here. Vice Chair Maynard. Here. Ranking Member McSuffin. Here. Senator Blessing. Here. Senator Petrona. Senator Gavron. Here. Senator Smith. Here. We do have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. Members, please review the minutes from the March 25th meeting on your iPads. Without objection, the minutes are approved, and we will call the first order of business, House Bill 296, for its first hearing, and we'll hear sponsored testimony from Representative Melanie Milner. Welcome. Thank you. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 296, a very simple, common-sense piece of legislation that would establish a 180-day or a six-month grace period for outstanding court-assessed fines or fees owed by incarcerated Ohioans when they immediately exit prison. Every year, approximately 18,000 Ohioans reenter society after serving their time. That is 18,000 men and women returning to our neighborhoods, our workforce, and our communities with an opportunity to start again with a second chance. Imagine being let out of prison after months or years of incarceration. You've paid your debt to society. You're ready to start fresh. You want to rebuild your life, make better choices, get a job, find a home, and reacclimate into society. However, you are immediately faced with mounting fines and fees that have accumulated during that time. And because you have not had the opportunity to get a job yet and get back on your feet, the amount continues to rise. This legislation intends to help these individuals overcome a huge barrier that has the potential to change the trajectory of their path forward. In the early period after prison, the risks of recidivism, suicide, drug relapse, homelessness, and unemployment for men and women are particularly high. Ohio communities are safer, stronger, and more prosperous when returning citizens can quickly find work and begin to establish a sense of normalcy and purpose in their lives. I want to be clear that this bill does not forgive debt or change the amount owed or eliminate restitution owed to victims. Instead, this bill simply presses the pause button for 180 days or six months to give returning citizens a brief window of relief to concentrate on what really matters. Finding a job, securing a place to live, and reconnecting with family and their community. No payments would be required for fines, fees, or financial sanctions or court costs related to criminal proceedings during this temporary pause. States like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee already offer a 180-day grace period for fines and fees after incarceration. Ohio has an opportunity now to lead on this initiative and implement a common sense policy that supports both re-entry and public safety. This legislation did receive strong bipartisan support in the House where it passed by a vote of 86 and was supported by a broad coalition of organizations including Prison Fellowship the Ohio Justice and Policy Center the Ohio Poverty Law Center the Alliance for Safety and Justice, and the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Reform Alliance, and the Ohio Community Corrections Association. When returning citizens can access stable employment, housing, and transportation, they are far more likely to succeed. And that success translates into safer, stronger, and more resilient communities across our state. House Bill 296 is practical, it is balanced, and it strengthens both reentry and public safety. Thank you, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, and Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the opportunity this morning to provide sponsored testimony for House Bill 296. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee has at this time. Thank you so much for your testimony.

I completely agree with that.

You know, that is, through the chair, that is a great question. I'm not sure how to answer that. in regards to that. I've had many conversations with some of our standing judges to talk through this process, but I can get back to you on maybe something more specific. But I appreciate that question.

And seeing no further questions, thank you once again. Thank you. And this will stand as the first hearing on House Bill 296. And next to our business, call Senate Bill 421 for its first hearing, and we'll now hear sponsored testimony from Leader Antonio.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify. I'm happy to attempt to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Leader Antonio, and thank you for all the work you've done on this. I know we've certainly done a lot of work on the criminal statute of limitations here, and it's long overdue that we're working on this, so I appreciate your support. And I also want to give a shout-out to Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence. They have their advocacy day today, and that's why we kind of pushed this one to the top. So I thank you for that. And the first question goes to Senator Blossom.

Yeah, I have to say that I don't know the answer to that question. I know that there are other states that have other limitations or no statute of limitations, but I do not know we can find that out to answer that question.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you once again.

Thank you, Leader. And this will stand as the first hearing on Senate Bill 421. The next order of business, call House Bill 532 for its first hearing, and we'll now hear sponsored testimony from Representative Kevin Miller. Committee will stand at ease for House Bill 532 and come back to it later. And we will now call House Bill 492 for its second hearing, and we will hear proponent testimony from Chief Ed Kinney from Medina Police Department. Welcome, Chief.

answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chief, for your testimony. You have a question? Ranking member.

Through the chair, Senator, that's the whole conundrum we're in. If they identify themselves, that's exactly what it is. It's a citation and they're released. If they refuse to identify themselves, we're in this legal ambiguity. What will not happen is that the officer is just going to get back in his car and leave because they can't get the identity of the driver. So this is the legal standoff that the officer is in with uncooperative drivers on the side of the road. We don't want to have that standoff, that argument, out on the side of the road. The officers need a clear mechanism that if somebody is refusing to identify themselves, there is no gray area. They have the authority to take that person into custody. So they have the choice. They can identify themselves, provide a driver's license so the citation can be issued and be on their way. It's not really the officer escalating the situation. It's the uncooperative driver. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, thank you for the follow-up question, Senator. In the state of Ohio, most departments follow best practices policies, And I understand the situation that you're speaking of where an officer may come up to the car and ask for a driver's license and not immediately identify the cause for the stop. Best practice policy in the state of Ohio and the policy of the Medina Police Department and many police departments across the state is that the officer approaches the vehicle, immediately identifies themselves by name, and immediately indicates the reason for the stop. and oftentimes that de-escalates that situation where the driver may suspect that it's not a lawful traffic stop however even if it is and a citation is issued the location for that argument is in the courts not on the side of the road

but just a direct follow up to that what if we codified that they had to identify the reason for the stop or that also if you refuse to do this, and I think that's best practice, if you refuse to do this, that would be against the law and I could put you under arrest before actually maybe for those officers that maybe aren't practicing best practice to go in there and they refuse and they immediately pull them out of the car and arrest them. I mean, is there any interest in maybe codifying that language that the officer has to identify the reason and also alert the driver that if they do not provide this, that they could be arrested. So that's two issues through the chair.

Next question goes to Senator Controna.

Through the chair, I appreciate that question as well. It does apply to a passenger when there's a reasonable violation that has been identified. And I would say maybe they were with possession of an open container or a seat belt violation. That's what that amendment was added in for as well. so that the passenger was held to the same standard when they were suspected of some type of violation.

Yeah, I'll give you a good situation for that through the chair. I appreciate the question. Oftentimes an officer will run a license plate on a vehicle. The owner may come back as suspended. they approach the vehicle and recognize, well, that's not the owner of the vehicle, so they're not suspended. In our department, the officer releases that driver and moves on. Again, our actions are based on court precedent, court rulings. I have heard of that court ruling, but I did not read the opinion in detail either. I appreciate that.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Judiciary Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our proponent testimony on House Bill 492, which, as you've heard, expands the offense of resisting, hindering, obstructing, or abusing a peace officer who is attempting to make an arrest, and specifically prohibits the operator or passenger of a motor vehicle from refusing to disclose their name, address, or date of birth when requested to do so during a traffic stop. It makes the refusal of that a misdemeanor of the fourth degree rather than a minor misdemeanor. In a case called Hibble v. 6th Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine the constitutionality of Utah's stop-and-identify statute that provided that officers could detain persons under circumstances reasonably indicating that they had committed or were about to commit a crime and required any person so detained to identify himself. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that statute, stating that a state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. They further noted that questions concerning a suspect's identity are routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. The ability to briefly stop a suspect ask questions or check identification and the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice In Ohio we have revised code section 292129 that prohibits a person who is in a public place from refusing to disclose the person name address or date of birth when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense. Traffic offenses, however, are not criminal offenses, and so this statute does not apply to someone who's pulled over only on suspicion of having committed a traffic violation. Consequently, as you just heard, when someone refuses to identify himself or herself during a traffic stop, there can be serious implications not only for the enforcement of our traffic laws, but for criminal law as well, because it enables people who have outstanding warrants for other crimes to go undetected. House Bill 492 addresses this issue by allowing for the arrest of individuals who refuse to provide identification during traffic stops, giving our police the opportunity to figure out who this person is and to run appropriate checks. I also, and you just heard this too, but questions came up in the House about why someone under these circumstances cannot be charged with obstructing official business. As you've just heard, there's some case law from several of the district courts of appeals in Ohio that have said that failure to provide identification is not an act within the meeting of our obstructing official business statute. So for these reasons, we support House Bill 492. People simply should not have the right to refuse to provide identification to law enforcement as long as the law enforcement officer conducting the stop had an articulable reason for doing so, including violation of our traffic laws. With that, I encourage the committee's favorable consideration of the bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you don't want to belabor the point, but let's just look at the Terry protections. And I get it. I do get it. and I do respect the need for police to do their jobs, keep us safe, and all that stuff. But when we look at how Terry and his progeny, how do you reconcile a traffic offense, potential offense, because it really isn't until the court says, yeah, it is an offense, with adding on this fourth degree, which could end up with a jail sentence?

Yes, well, thank you for that. Thank you for your answer. I want to talk with you offline some more about this because Again, I understand sort of. I just don't agree necessarily because a traffic stop is under a different section of the code. There's different sets of penalties versus a criminal action, which requires whether it's a fourth degree or minor misdemeanor or first degree felony. There's some different types of requirements on the part of the defendant. So I'd like to talk with you some more about that if you don't mind. Thank you, rather than belabor it. You heard some of the questions I asked prior in terms of codifying best practice where the officer at least identifies why they stopped somebody and also the potential of being arrested if they fail to identify themselves. Any thoughts on adding that into the statute?

obviously not a restable offense this is jumping to an M2 any reason for the large jump, maybe just bumping this from a minor misdemeanor to an M4? Any thoughts on that?

Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony.

Next we'll hear proponent testimony from Mike Wyman on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police. As always, welcome.

for your testimony. Any questions from committee? Getting off easy. Everybody got the tough ones before you. Thank you for your testimony as always. Thank you. Appreciate it. Please note written proponent testimony from Buckeye State Sheriff's Association and this will stand as the second hearing on House Bill 492 We will now revert back the House Bill 532 for its first hearing and we hear sponsored testimony from Representative Kevin Miller Welcome.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions?

if you could respond. Thank you. Sure. Through the chair. Thank you for that question, Senator. Ironically enough, this actually around the state, there's different instances. Some counties have a very collaborative relationship with their child protective services. Sometimes they enter some information into MOUs. You're going to hear testimony from witnesses that will give you exact examples on what has taken place in various portions of the state. So I guess to answer your question, It kind of depends on the county. And some of the counties that won't do this fall back to the code, which basically tells them that they don't have the ability to do that. We had some discussions with the association, CPS, their association. They were concerned we had used the word custody originally. And with that, as many of you probably know, there's some implications with that. So we changed it to temporary emergency care to ensure that that agency is not taking on the role and all the responsibilities when you are awarded the technical custody award.

Proceed when ready. Thank you. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony for Senate Bill 393, which would add prohibitions against artificially generated child sexual abuse material and enhance penalties for the worst offenders. My name is Elena Hagans. I am an assistant county prosecutor and the director of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. With me today is Commander David Friteri. He has worked with Ohio ICAC since 2009. He currently supervises investigations and acts as a national representative for the organization. The Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force was started in Cuyahoga County by Prosecutor Bill Mason in 1999. It is an alliance of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement authorities dedicated to the apprehension and prosecution of online predators. Now chaired by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael C. O'Malley, the task force focuses on its mission while battling the evolving dangers of technology. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate, and the Ohio Revised Code is swiftly falling behind. Senate Bill 393 is critical because it directly addresses the growing proliferation of obscene, artificially generated images that currently fall outside the reach of Ohio law. Under existing law, it is deeply troubling that a child predator may transpose a real child's face onto a nude body. From there, the offender can generate any number of explicit images modified to gratify their own depravities. I have had conversations with parents whose children have fallen victim to this exact scenario I have heard the panic the desperation the confusion in their voices when I tell them that the offenders cannot be held accountable under Ohio law In prosecuting child sexual abuse material cases defendants increasingly attempt to evade accountability by claiming the material is not real. But these artificially generated images are no less obscene. They erode the most basic community standards of decency, standards that unequivocally reject the sexual exploitation of children. A society that tolerates such material, whether it's AI-generated or real, simply cannot be accepted. Senate Bill 393 also strengthens protections for children

Thank you so much for your testimony. I do have one question. This might not be fair because it's a complicated constitutional question. Under the bill, the artificial generated depiction is a visual depiction of an actual person that was created or edited.

Thank you for that. I'll certainly work with you on maybe a potential amendment. My last question, and you didn't really touch on this aspect of the bill, but I know you – I apologize. I missed a meeting earlier with you in your office. But in terms of the sexting part of the bill, I know it applies to sexual activity with oneself, but it doesn't apply to sexual activity with another. Do you think we should expand that to sexual activity for those pictures or videos that are being sent?

Appreciate it. Thank you for that answer.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 393, which strengthens Ohio's criminal statutes to better protect minors from sexual exploitation. ODVN strongly supports the bill's expansion of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and GSI to cover 16- and 17-year-olds when the offender is four or more years older. We know that Ohio law has recognized that age gap and how it can create an inherent power imbalance in relationships and undermine any ability to give meaningful consent in these situations. We also see this in the work we do in crime victim services. It can create a conundrum where we've got a group of people who are at heightened risk with reduced ability to provide protections. So we appreciate that component of the bill, but we also would respectfully recommend that the committee consider upgrading the penalty for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when the offender is more than four but fewer than 10 years older than the victim, Currently, the way the bill is drafted, that's an M1. It's a first-degree misdemeanor. And we would suggest that perhaps that be enhanced to a fifth-degree felony because the way it's drafted, someone now who is 6, 7, 8, 9 years older than a minor would only face that misdemeanor charge, which does not necessarily adequately address the harm that that person has the ability to cause the minor where at the 10 age limit it becomes an F3 So we think that that might still preserve that What I've always heard referred to as a Romeo and Juliet kind of age gap, the high school senior who's dating a freshman. Those are the relationships that we don't necessarily want to mix into because those folks are peers. But the minute you get to that five-year age difference, things significantly change. We also appreciate the bill's new minor-specific sexting provisions. They reflect the difficult but important reality that child sexual abuse material can cause harm no matter who creates it. I was previously a Children's Advocacy Center director, and I have spent decades saying kitty porn is kitty porn, even if the kitties themselves create it. And we know that peer-to-peer sharing of these images between minors can become a vehicle for sextortion, for harassment, and other types of coercive control. And we see this not only with abusive partners and ex-partners, but there are other people who are sometimes provided the images or otherwise have the ability to obtain those images, and that risk carries with the image. We appreciate that the bill is carefully scoped to look at these consensual images and has graduated penalties and increases the consequences for repeated conduct. I know over the past couple of decades when we've looked at CSAM, child sexual abuse materials, people originally looked at those images as an issue around documenting abuse. We were looking at an adult with a minor or at least some age gap and a minor, and the issue was much less the image and much more about the fact that it documented a prior crime. And so that's how we tended to look at those images. The image itself wasn't the issue. But what we've known as we've gone on is that there's two things that are true about the Internet. Absolutely nothing is absolutely private, and everything is permanent. So we recognize that there's a tension there in criminalizing conduct between young people, but we appreciate that this is looking at this in a stepped kind of way, and we understand that convictions can have lifelong consequences for young people, but we also know that those images can create a lifelong vulnerability. So that's the calculus that has to be balanced, and we think the bill does an extraordinary job, because that's a complex question, of managing that. The other thing we'd like to address briefly, because it might seem odd, we're not the child abuse people, we're not the sex crimes people, we're the domestic violence folks. But we know across all of these areas that most offenders engage in as much behavior as they think they can get away with. And if they're successful, the next time they do a little more. And that's how we see offenses and risk escalate. So creating clear consequences for more people and sooner in the process that they start engaging in abusive and criminal behavior will actually help make not just the folks that this bill expressly protects, but all of our communities safer. So we want to thank Senators Timken and Manning for bringing this legislation forward to help protect all of our communities. Thank you.

I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse and child trafficking by priests. That experience and the work of confronting it is what has led me to this building, and I have worked alongside many of you across both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to advance reforms that protect children and expand justice for survivors. I'm here today in that same spirit. I stand in support of Senate Bill 393, and I feel I might be able to offer unique insight to the committee on why this bill is so important. But I would also like to propose some simple ideas that I think might serve to make Ohio's kids a little safer than I was as a child. Every image represents an abuse event when it comes to these sorts of images. Every video is of a crime scene. Ohio's current sentencing structure treats every person possessing one image and a person possessing 10,000 images as functionally the same offender. That's wrong. The escalating sentence structure in this bill, the age-based enhancements for victims, and the quantity specifications that triggers a mandatory consecutive five-year prison term for 100 or more images, these are proportionate and long overdue. I applaud the sponsors for this work. I also want to acknowledge the extension of the law to cover 16 and 17-year-old victims when the offender is four years or more older. That matters deeply and is an issue in Ohio law that has long held my attention. This bill raises the floor and gives prosecutors, families, and law enforcement a tool that has long been missing. I want to share something as a child survivor from the other side of the camera. When you're being abused in a room and the door is closed, you know that it will eventually end. You will eventually leave that room, and you hope that nobody saw anything. You hope that nobody knows and that you can move on with your life. As a child, at least at my age, I comprehended that the abuse would eventually be over, and the terror of someone seeing what was happening to me would pass. Shame is the weapon these men use. And a camera weaponizes that shame in an entirely different way. A child can comprehend that the video could be shared with anyone on the planet. That realization is terrifying. For me, there were few days, few events at my church that were more frightening than walking into a room and seeing a camera set up on a tripod. That fear kept me silent for decades. It kept my friends silent, and is one of the methods that abusers use to ensure children never speak. This is why the quantity standard matters. This is why equating one video to 75 images matters. It reflects the federal standard and acknowledges that the video is not just another form of evidence. This bill also brings new AI provisions, and I'd like to speak to those. I've been developing and building AIs for about 16 years or so. I spend just about all my time working on whatever the latest AIs are, developing them, creating them. The reason I'm able to be here is I made one years ago and make enough money to have a little bit of free time to do these sorts of things. Very little amount of money. Artificial intelligence presents a new frontier in weaponizing shame against children. This committee and the Statehouse have already confronted this issue, and you know the story of Braden Law legislation born from this tragedy AI material can now create fake videos that appear to depict real children in compromising positions These are not photographs of actual abuse events, these are fabrications, but for the child whose likeness is stolen, the trauma is real, the shame is real, and the fear of exposure is very real. The way a camera can be wielded as a weapon against a child in the moment of abuse, AI can now be weaponized in perpetuity. The bill's inclusion of artificially generated depiction of minors, treating them with the same seriousness as images of actual abuse, is exactly right. Because what matters is not whether the abuse happened in front of a lens or was it conjured by an algorithm. What matters is the child. What matters is understanding that this assault is not inflicted just through the creation of material, but through the knowledge, the child's knowledge, that such material exists can be shared, traded, and weaponized forever. I want to raise just one issue for the committee's consideration around this. I support the bill, and hopefully there are good discussions about how to make Ohio's kids as safe as possible. Currently, Ohio law contains several exemptions that this bill touches on that I think we could address. One of those is clergy, another is librarian, another is teacher. and in current Ohio law there are reasons that one of you know for a doctor for a judge or prosecutor there are reasons that they might possess this material in the course of their duties but I can't think of a reasonable explanation for why a teacher a librarian or a pastor would possess any of these I can't I can't think of any any reasonable explanation I think that anyone who comes into contact with child porn there is only one thing to do and and that's taken to law enforcement right then. And so I think it would be interesting for the committee to explore putting a black line through some of these exemptions here to make the bill a little bit stronger. And I think there's also potentially an interesting idea here when it comes to the mandatory reporting. Right now, under Ohio law, as I understand it, if an average citizen who is not a mandatory reporter finds child sexual abuse material, they are under no compulsion of the law to report that. I don't think that should be how we do this. I think it should be mandatory reporting for everyone. And through the chair, there was a member on the committee that I think might be interested in this next piece here that is not present currently. But what if AI was a mandatory reporter? What if these algorithms, when they detected that they were being used to create child sexual abuse material, that these companies immediately flagged it. The technologies, we have it. It's not difficult to do, so I think that could be very helpful. I'll speak to the clergy piece a little bit here. So current Ohio law contains a clergy exemption that allows members of clergy to possess child sexual abuse material under a claim of bona fide religious purpose. This exemption appears in four sections of the code that this bill touches, ORC 959.21, 2907.321, 2907.322, and 2907.323. Unlike physicians, attorneys, or licensed counselors, clergy in Ohio are not licensed by any state body. They cannot be disciplined by a state board. There is no defined standard of what constitutes a bona fide religious purpose anywhere in Ohio Revised Code that I've been able to find. The exemption in its current form creates an affirmative defense that I think is structurally I submit that there is no bona fide religious purpose or teacher purpose or librarian purpose for the possession of child sexual abuse material. The only appropriate action for any person, clergy or otherwise, who discovers such material is the immediate reporting of it to law enforcement. As I said in my understanding of the law, currently Ohio does not require individuals who discover CSAM to report it. Possession is a crime, but discovery and silence are not. This bill, I think, is an opportunity to close that. I would ask the committee to consider a simple amendment, blacklining key phrases like members of the clergy from all four sections of this bill, and replace the ambiguous exemption with a clear mandate. Any person who discovers child sexual abuse material must report it to law enforcement immediately. Failure to report, I believe, should be a misdemeanor in the fourth degree. This would not criminalize accidental discovery. it would clarify that silence in the face of evidence of child sexual abuse is not an option, not for clergy, not for anyone. To Chairman Manning and the sponsors, thank you so much for this bill. It builds a better Ohio. If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance to the committee on the issue, I'm available.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our proponent testimony today on Senate Bill 393 that includes several changes to Chapter 2907 as well as updates to prohibitions on sexual conduct with an animal. I'm going to skip through some of my testimony in the interest of time and just try to hit the highlights since you've already heard some of this from the other proponents. On the issue of artificially generated pornography, child pornography, this is an issue that we've been trying to address for the last several years, really since this technology started to be more widespread in late 2022. And just to give you a couple of statistics from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 67% of CCM survivors said the distribution of their images, actually that's the wrong portion of the bill, I'm going to skip down to, So since 2023, NCMEC's Cyber Tip Line, in 2023, they received 4,700 reports of artificial CSAM. By 2024, they'd received 67,000 reports of artificial CSAM. And for 2025, they received 7,000-plus reports of users generating or possessing artificial CSAM, 30,000-plus reports of users attempting to generate artificial CSAM by uploading a file and using text prompts, and 145,000-plus reports of users using artificial intelligence to engage or alter a CCM file, and 3,000-plus reports relating to other forms of child sexual exploitation through other forms of artificial intelligence like chat-based exploitation. So the generation of these images, the production of them, the sharing of them, has absolutely exploded exponentially since 2023 when this technology first really came about. And it is really important to our membership that we address this issue and that we address it as soon as is possible. Regarding the increased penalties for victims under 13, depictions of acts of violence, and possession of 100 or more images, again referring to the NCMEC 67 of CSAM survivors said the distribution of their images impacts them differently than the hands abuse they suffered because the distribution never ends and the images are permanent Additionally they cite studies showing that one prepubescent children are at greater risk to be depicted in CSAM and when boys are victimized, they are much more likely than girls to be subjected to very explicit or egregious abuse. And so that's why we feel that changes in Senate Bill 393 that will help ensure accountability for offenders who are creating and sharing and possessing these images of children who are under 13, who are prepubescent, and who are being subjected to acts of violence are particularly important and are going to help prevent, hopefully, future victimization of children. On the sexting portion of the bill, while this activity is somewhat widespread, it is not something that we think should be taken lightly. Parents get highly upset when they find out about it. Communities don't like this. It creates a variety of dangers, as you've heard, for the teenagers who are engaged in it, including risks related to cyberbullying and sextortion. And as with CSAM, these are images that once they are out there, they are permanent and distribution can wind up being endless. Prosecutors already have a wide latitude when dealing with this issue, and consequences can range anywhere from diversion to adjudication for pandering obscenity involving a minor. It's important to understand that these are highly fact-dependent cases where sexting between only a boyfriend and a girlfriend might be viewed substantially differently and as something with less culpability than an aggrieved ex who sends pictures of their ex to an entire school or somebody who's sending unsolicited pictures of themselves to groups of girls or groups of boys. And prosecutors need this discretion to navigate these different sets of facts that they come across. The sexting provisions of Senate Bill 393, we think, maintain that discretion while creating this new misdemeanor charging option for first-time offenders when the two actors are between the ages of 14 and 17, and they have reason to suspect or know that the sexting is consensual. There will still be accountability for this, and the hope is that the individuals who are engaged in this are going to learn the lesson and be deterred from future sexting or engaging in something more serious. The bill also creates this close-in-age exception with offenses for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and gross sexual imposition. We're in support of this as well. Under current law, it's prohibited to engage in sexual conduct with someone who's 13 years of age or older but less than 16 when the offender is 18 years of age or older. There is no similar prohibition right now in having sexual contact with a minor who's 13 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age, and that's something we actually consider to be a gap in the law currently. Simply put, Senate Bill 393 closes this gap with regard to sexual contact and imposes new prohibitions on adults engaging in sexual conduct or sexual contact with minors who are 16 or 17 years old when the adult is four or more years older than the victim of that crime. Finally, nobody's talked yet about the increased penalty for sexual conduct with an animal that's in the bill. It does increase that penalty from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a felony of the fifth degree, a penalty increase that we believe is warranted based on the perverse nature of this conduct and the community outrage that happens in these cases. Cases of animal sexual abuse are rarer. They're less frequent than child sexual abuse, but they frequently involve horrific facts in their own right. And just as an example, this is an important change to our Trumbull County prosecutor, who had a case in 2024 where the defendant was convicted of two counts of second felony pandering obscenity involving a minor four counts of second felony pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and also five misdemeanor counts of sexual conduct with an animal where at least one of those counts was apparently filmed in front of a child that was the offender's family member. While the offender received a lengthy sentence for the pandering charges, he received no additional time for the misdemeanor sexual conduct with the animal charges, even though he received the maximum 90-day sentence for that. It was concurrent time with the felony pandering offenses. And so we think that by increasing the penalty to a felony in this bill, we're going to help ensure that these depraved acts involving animals receive the punishment that's more in line with what we think communities in Ohio expect. For all these reasons, we support Senate Bill 393. I appreciate the work that the chairman and Senator Timken have put into this bill and your advocacy on behalf of child victims. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. I saw your head look up when the previous witness talked about having an algorithm that would become a mandatory reporter. What are your thoughts?

Seeing no further written proponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, and this will stand as the second hearing on Senate Bill 393. The next in our business to call House Bill 20 for its third hearing, and we'll now hear opponent testimony from Gary Daniels on behalf of the ACLU of Ohio. As always, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. I do have one question. I know in here, I don't have the exact language, but basically we have, with the purpose of preventing, obstructing, or delaying the responder's performance, the authorized act within the responder's official capacity with the videotaping within a certain amount of feet. Do you know if the other states had that language, or was it purely just videotaping a law enforcement officer within a certain audience?

Seeing no further questions, thank you once again for your testimony. And this will stand as the third hearing on House Bill 20. We do have three more bills, but this should go pretty quickly. The next order of business is the third hearing, so this will stand as the third hearing for House Bill 195. The next order of business is to call Senate Bill 277 for its third hearing, and we also did not receive any testimony, so this will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 277. And the final order of business is to call Senate Bill 341 for its third hearing, and once again, we did not receive any testimony, so this will stand as the third hearing for Senate Bill 341. And with no further business, we stand adjourned.