20-02-2025
Ohio bill would add new civil liability for property damaged in protests
State Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, speaks during an Ohio Senate session at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)
An Ohio senator has offered a measure establishing civil liability for property damage applying to protesters. Instead of simply holding the perpetrator accountable, the proposal would expand liability to those who provide material support for the protest itself. It would also put the onus on the accused to prove they didn't damage the property.
Additionally, the bill prohibits local government officials from placing restrictions on how their law enforcement agencies respond to protests.
The sponsor, state Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, argued during testimony in committee Wednesday that expanding the scope of liability is an appropriate response to demonstrations that leave behind broken windows and vandalism. And he insisted there are adequate safeguards in place to protect Ohioans' First Amendment right to protest.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Senate Bill 53 is not Schaffer's first proposal tied to protests or riots. During the last general assembly, he offered a bill effectively identical to SB 53, and the one before that, he proposed a bill requiring people convicted of riot and aggravated riot to pay restitution for property damage and the cost of police response.
Explaining the necessity for the changes, Schaffer looked back about as far back in time as his first proposal, pointing to the Columbus Dispatch indicating in reports that property damage from protests in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd cost at least $1.2 million.
'This affected at least 115 businesses, nonprofits and state government offices,' he argued. 'This sort of behavior should not be tolerated and should be prosecuted whenever possible.'
Schaffer contends it's not enough to go after those who physically cause damage. Under his bill, he said, 'people who provide destructive materials such as frozen water bottles or pallets of bricks near a riot can be held accountable for their actions as well.'
He assured committee members there's a 'guard rail' in place — offenders can show by clear and convincing evidence that they didn't personally cause the damage in question. Still, the bill establishes a presumption that the person accused of causing damage is in fact liable for it.
'I want to make crystal clear that there is nothing in this bill that discourages or violates the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and protest,' he told committee members. 'This bill is simply designed to hold those who turn violent and destructive accountable for their actions and to deter these actions.'
In committee, the only immediate pushback Schaffer heard was from Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo, who questioned placing limits on local governments' ability to direct their law enforcement agencies.
Schaffer defended the provision, arguing 'the whole point of this provision is to make sure politicians aren't making those calls, but the cops — who we've hired and asked to take an oath — on the scene, are making those calls.'
Civil rights organizations, however, are extremely skeptical of Schaffer's bill.
Emily Cole, who heads up Ohio Families Unite for Political Action and Change said, 'We strongly oppose Senate Bill 53 and have opposed previous attempts to strip Ohioans of their fundamental right to protest by Sen. Schaffer.'
She added that her group opposes the restrictions on government officials directing their police agencies, stating it's against 'any attempt to weaponize law enforcement against communities while simultaneously placing law enforcement above supervision.'
Joshua Katz who's on the executive committee of the Ohio National Lawyers Guild explained that state criminal law already holds convicted protesters accountable for property damage. By creating a new civil liability standard, he argued, the measure puts community groups under threat.
'It's intended to have a chilling effect,' he argued. 'It's intended to say to people, to organizations, to community groups: Don't go out there, because if you do, if anything happens, you could be held liable for it.'
'You can paint with a very broad brush,' Katz added. 'All you have to do is come up with some pretext for damages and then this could be used as a weapon to batter community organizing.'
ACLU of Ohio chief lobbyist Gary Daniels brought up similar concerns.
He argued that the legislative definitions for 'riot' and 'material support' are both extremely broad.
As a hypothetical, he offered an anti-war group sharing information about a protest online. If violence breaks out, they could find themselves in court defending themselves against whether that promotion amounted to material support. Even if they're successful in beating back the charges, going to court is time-consuming and expensive.
'If a person or some entity is actually responsible for causing financial harm or losses to another, they can already be sued,' Daniels said. 'There is simply no need to muddy the waters by introducing 'material support' and its murky definitions into this mix.'
'Unless, of course, the end goal is to chill lawful speech and actions,' he added.
Of the policing restrictions, he said that the 'worst-case scenario' looks like 'police deliberately violating the constitutional rights of people in response to a riot or vandalism.'
Under the bill, police could act unilaterally, and a city's mayor would have little recourse to stop their actions or direct them not to take that approach in the future. Daniels said it raises an important question: Can local elected officials prevent police from deliberately violating peoples' constitutional rights to protest?
'Under the bill's language,' he said. 'The answer appears to be no.'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
