House Bill 492

Written by: Christopher White, Esq. Beginning October 6, 2026, Ohio drivers and passengers will face new identification requirements during certain encounters with law enforcement.

Ohio House Bill 492 amends Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.36 and makes two significant changes to Ohio law. First, it creates a new offense for certain drivers and passengers who refuse to provide identifying information to law enforcement. Second, it significantly increases the potential penalty for interfering with an officer making an arrest for a violation of Ohio’s transportation laws.

For Ohioans, the most important point may also be the easiest one to misunderstand:

House Bill 492 does not require every passenger in a vehicle to identify themselves simply because the vehicle has been stopped by police.

Here is what the new law actually says.

When Must a Driver Identify Themselves?

Under the new version of Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.36, a driver must provide their name, address, and date of birthwhen requested by a peace officer if the officer reasonably suspects that the driver committed a violation of Title 45 of the Ohio Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.

Title 45 contains Ohio’s motor vehicle and transportation laws, including many of the laws governing traffic violations, vehicle equipment, driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and related matters.

For drivers, this requirement will often arise during an ordinary traffic stop.

If an officer reasonably suspects a driver of speeding, for example, the new law generally requires the driver to provide the identifying information specified in the statute.

What About Passengers?

This is where House Bill 492 becomes particularly important.

The new law also applies to passengers—but it does not appear to create a blanket requirement that every passenger identify themselves during every traffic stop.

Instead, the statute requires the officer to reasonably suspect that the particular passenger committed a violation of Title 45 or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.

Consider a simple example.

A police officer stops a vehicle because the driver was traveling 72 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone. There are three passengers in the vehicle.

The driver’s speeding violation does not, by itself, mean that House Bill 492 requires all three passengers to provide their names, addresses, and dates of birth.

The statute requires reasonable suspicion that the individual passenger committed a qualifying violation.

The result could be different if, for example, the officer observes conduct by a passenger that the officer reasonably believes violates an applicable transportation law.

That distinction is important.

The statute says the officer must reasonably suspect that "the passenger has committed a violation." It does not simply say that everyone in a vehicle must identify themselves whenever a vehicle is lawfully stopped.

What Information Must Be Provided?

When the statute applies, House Bill 492 requires three pieces of information:

Name

Address

Date of birth

The General Assembly also placed an important limitation in the law.

The statute specifically states that nothing in this provision requires a driver or passenger to answer questions beyond their name, address, or date of birth.

In other words, House Bill 492 is an identification statute. It is not a general requirement that a person answer every investigative question asked by a police officer.

Questions about where someone is going, where they have been, what is inside the vehicle, whether they have been drinking, or other investigative matters are not made mandatory simply because of House Bill 492.

Other laws and circumstances may affect a person’s rights and obligations during a particular encounter, but HB 492 itself does not create a general obligation to answer those questions.

There Is an Important Exception Involving Age

The General Assembly also included an unusual but important protection.

A driver or passenger is not required to disclose their age or date of birth under this provision when age is an element of the offense the officer suspects the person committed.

This limitation helps address the constitutional concern that a person could otherwise be required to provide information that establishes an element of the alleged crime against them.

What Happens if Someone Refuses?

The consequences of refusing a qualifying request are significant.

Failure to provide the required identifying information when the requirements of the statute have been satisfied is a fourth-degree misdemeanor.

A fourth-degree misdemeanor in Ohio can carry a potential penalty of up to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.

That means an encounter involving a relatively minor transportation offense can potentially become more serious if a driver or passenger refuses to identify themselves when Ohio law requires them to do so.

This may become one of the most practically significant consequences of HB 492.

HB 492 Also Increases the Penalty for Interfering With an Arrest

The identification requirement has received considerable attention, but House Bill 492 makes another important change.

Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.36 has historically prohibited certain conduct interfering with officers making arrests for specified traffic offenses.

HB 492 expands the provision to arrests involving violations throughout Title 45 of the Ohio Revised Code and substantially equivalent municipal ordinances.

It also substantially increases the penalty.

Previously, a violation of this provision was a minor misdemeanor. Under the amended law, interfering with an officer under this section is a second-degree misdemeanor.

A second-degree misdemeanor can carry up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine.

That is a meaningful increase in potential criminal exposure.

Does This Mean Ohio Is Now a "Stop-and-Identify" State?

That description is too broad to accurately explain House Bill 492.

Ohio already has other laws addressing when individuals may be required to disclose identifying information to law enforcement. HB 492 creates an additional identification requirement specifically connected to violations of Ohio’s transportation laws.

More importantly, HB 492 does not say that police may demand identification from anyone at any time.

The statute contains a critical threshold: the officer must reasonably suspect that the particular driver or passenger committed a qualifying violation.

That requirement is likely to be especially important in cases involving passengers.

Expect Courts to Address the Boundaries of the New Law

As with many new criminal statutes, some of the most important questions will ultimately be answered by Ohio courts.

For example, courts may need to determine what facts are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that a particular passenger committed a Title 45 violation.

Courts may also encounter cases involving the interaction between HB 492, Ohio’s existing identification statute, constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Those cases will help define the practical boundaries of the new statute.

Until then, both law enforcement officers and Ohio residents should pay careful attention to what the statute actually requires.

The Practical Takeaway for Ohio Drivers and Passengers

Beginning October 6, 2026:

If an Ohio peace officer reasonably suspects that you personally committed a qualifying transportation offense, the officer may require you to provide your name, address, and date of birth. Refusing to provide that information when the statute applies can itself result in a criminal charge.

But the law does not create an unlimited obligation to answer police questions.

And passengers should understand an especially important distinction:

Simply being a passenger in a vehicle that has been stopped does not, standing alone, appear to trigger HB 492’s identification requirement. The statute requires reasonable suspicion that the passenger personally committed a qualifying violation.

As always, the legality of a particular traffic stop or police encounter depends heavily on its specific facts. Anyone charged with an offense arising from a refusal to identify themselves, an allegedly unlawful traffic stop, or interference with an officer should obtain legal advice concerning the particular circumstances of the encounter.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws and their interpretation may change, and the application of Ohio law depends upon the specific facts of each matter.