Ohio lawmakers are again hearing a bill that creates civil penalties for protesters who vandalize buildings or other structures, which would be in addition to criminal penalties they could face for charges like rioting, aggravated rioting or vandalism.
Under Senate Bill 53, injured parties—such as local businesses—could sue protesters for damages to their property via court order. If the injured party can prove the defendant’s conduct led to the damages, the order can be used to require the protester or protesters fix what “occurred as a proximate result,” according to SB 53.
That liability would extend to protesters who provided the “destructive” materials, like frozen water bottles or palettes of bricks, said Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster).
“This sort of behavior should not be tolerated and should be prosecuted whenever possible,” Schaffer said Wednesday in front of the Senate Judiciary committee.
Schaffer cited extensive damage to downtown Columbus properties during protests in May and June 2020, which flared worldwide following the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer. In Columbus, the earliest days of demonstrations led to $1.2 million worth of property damage and vandalism costs, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
The bill also bars government officials from limiting or interfering with police activity, leaving sole authority over whether to arrest or detain those “involved in a riot or vandalism activity” to law enforcement agencies themselves.
Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) voiced particular concern with that provision.
“I’m wondering if you’re talking about a mayor of a city directing his chief or her chief or the police officers to do or not do something? Is that the intent?” Hicks-Hudson asked Schaffer.
Schaffer said that was the idea.
“Officers on the ground, officers at the event, trying to restore peace ... have the best judgment of anybody as to whether, or what actions they should take. Do I arrest this person? Do I not?” Schaffer said “Let them make that decision.”
This is not the first time a similar bill has been brought forward. Schaffer has introduced related versions the last two legislative sessions, neither of which made it further than committee hearings.
