Oppose Ohio House Bill 102 Restricting Ohio registrants from residing or loitering near a survivor’s home
House Bill 102 (2025-2026) may sound like it protects survivors — but it’s a legally risky, harmful bill that doesn’t address the real challenges they face. Here’s what it does, and why Ohio RSOL strongly opposes it.
Ohio lawmakers are proposing a one-size-fits all bill that disempowers survivors and encourages victim stalking. Representatives Klopfenstein and Williams are proposing HB 102 in response to a case involving the sexual abuse of a 6-year-old by a neighbor. A court convicted the neighbor and sentenced them to 6 months of probation for their actions. The 6-year-old is so terrified of the individual that she won’t even play in her own yard because he still lives next door. This courageous child survivor deserves to live without fear, but house bill 102 isn’t the solution.
Table of Contents
What does HB 102 propose to do?
HB 102 would prohibit citizens required to register from residing within 2,000 feet of the residence of the survivor and from loitering within 1,000 feet of the residence of the survivor.
The bill allows an owner or lessee of real property, or the prosecuting attorney, village solicitor, city or township director of law, similar chief legal officer of a municipal corporation or township, or official designated as a prosecutor in a municipal corporation to bring a cause of action for injunctive relief against the registered citizen without the consent of the survivor. Under the bill, the plaintiff is not required to prove irreparable harm to get relief.
What are the problems with HB 102?
1) The law would require registry affected citizens to track down and monitor where survivors live to guarantee they comply with the law. This won’t help survivors to feel safer.
“As a truck driver, I make deliveries all over the region — including near where my accuser and their family are believed to live. But they move frequently, and I’ve been told I’m not allowed to know even the municipality they live in. So how am I supposed to follow a 2,000-foot rule? HB 102 could set people up to fail, and punish them for something they can’t avoid.”
HB 102 compels the connection between survivor and aggressor to last 10, 15, or 25 years, or for life.
2) HB 102 offers no practical help, merely a symbolic gesture that won’t protect those who need it most. There’s no offering for counseling or support for victim-survivors. It’s just a symbolic boundary.
Laws that prioritize sensationalism over practicality fail to address the root causes of problems and to provide genuine safety for victims and the community.
3) HB 102 would break-up families who have not only survived sexual crimes but have traveled the path of healing and restoration. It’s true; a familiar person commits the crime in 80% of sexual assault cases. Some families choose to follow a path of counseling, therapy, and reconciliation.
“The Department of Corrections named my wife and two children as victims, even though they had nothing to do with my case. I had to fight to be able to live with my adult son, because officials kept insisting he was a victim too. Even now, the situation with legal authorities is fragile.”
Ohio House Bill 102 would not only break this family apart but would strip the citizen required to registry of stable housing, which contributes to recidivism.
Even if a family would want to remain together, HB 102 empowers landlords, neighbors, and prosecutors to file injunctions on behalf of the victim — even if the victim opposes it. That’s bureaucratic procedural red- tape that strips the survivor of their voice and power to say “NO”.
This law allows third parties to break apart families and deprives the survivor of their right of consent.
4) HB 102 will never help this child survivor. In State v. Williams (2011), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that applying new residency or registration restrictions retroactively is unconstitutional, calling it punishment beyond the original sentence.
HB 102 isn’t necessary if lawmakers would make protection orders to protect.
Protection orders are meant to protect, but they can’t protect because they fall short of truly protecting the public. Survivors of sexually oriented offenses should be able to seek Sexually Oriented Offense Protection Order (SSOOPO), as outlined in Ohio Revised Code § 2950.01. However, these are limited to sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact.
It’s time for Ohio legislators to stop wasting tax payer money enacting sweeping, unclear bans that duplicate existing resources for a 15 second publicity sound-bite. Instead, they should invest in proven methods of protection.
