Ohio
Ohio Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Ring doorbells have become one of the most popular home security devices in Ohio, with cameras mounted on front doors from Cleveland to Cincinnati. These devices record both video and audio, which means they fall under multiple Ohio statutes. Ohio's wiretapping law (Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52) controls when audio interception is lawful, while the voyeurism statute (Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08) restricts certain types of visual surveillance. Ohio follows a one-party consent rule for audio recording, making it legal for Ring owners to record conversations they participate in. But the details matter. Violations of Ohio's wiretapping law carry fourth-degree felony penalties, so understanding the boundaries is essential for any Ohio resident who owns or is considering a Ring doorbell.
Ohio Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
The most significant legal issue with Ring doorbells in Ohio involves their audio recording capability. Every Ring doorbell model includes a microphone that records sound alongside video, which triggers Ohio's wiretapping statute.
One-Party Consent Rule
Ohio follows a one-party consent framework under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52. The statute prohibits any person from purposely intercepting, attempting to intercept, or procuring any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. However, the law contains a critical exception: a person who is a party to the communication, or a person who has received prior consent from one of the parties, may legally intercept the communication. The interception cannot be for the purpose of committing a criminal offense or tortious act in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States or Ohio, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.
For Ring doorbell owners in Ohio, this exception works in a practical way. When someone approaches the front door and the homeowner responds through the Ring app's two-way talk feature, the homeowner becomes a party to the conversation. That participation satisfies the one-party consent requirement, and the audio recording is lawful under Ohio law.

When Audio Recording Raises Concerns
The legal picture becomes less clear when a Ring doorbell records conversations the homeowner does not participate in. If two people have a private discussion on the front porch while the Ring camera captures their audio, the homeowner has potentially intercepted a communication without any party's consent.
No published Ohio decision appears to address squarely whether a Ring doorbell's passive, continuous audio recording of front-porch conversations amounts to an "interception" under § 2933.52. The statute requires the interception to be "purposeful," which raises questions about whether always-on ambient recording meets that threshold. The safest approach for Ohio homeowners who want to avoid this gray area is to disable the microphone in the Ring app settings.
Ohio's Definition of "Oral Communication"
Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51, an "oral communication" is defined as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation. A conversation on a front porch that is openly visible from the street may not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, which could reduce the legal risk of passive audio capture. However, no Ohio decision appears to have applied that definition to doorbell-camera recordings.
Video Recording Laws in Ohio
Ohio treats video surveillance differently from audio recording. No broad Ohio statute prohibits homeowners from recording video on their own property. The video component of a Ring doorbell does not trigger the wiretapping statute because § 2933.52 applies specifically to wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Voyeurism Statute
Ohio's voyeurism law (Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08) restricts certain types of video recording. Under division (A), no person may, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying themselves, commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another to spy or eavesdrop. Under division (B), no person may secretly or surreptitiously videotape, film, photograph, or otherwise record another person in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, for the purpose of viewing the private areas of that person.
A Ring doorbell pointed at a front door, walkway, and driveway captures areas where people generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The voyeurism statute is more likely to apply if a camera is deliberately aimed at windows, bathrooms, or other private spaces.
Voyeurism Penalties
Ohio grades voyeurism by which division is violated. A violation of division (A) of § 2907.08 is a third-degree misdemeanor. A violation of division (B) is a second-degree misdemeanor, and a violation of division (D), which covers recording under or through clothing, is a first-degree misdemeanor. A violation of division (C), which covers recording a minor, is a fifth-degree felony.

Camera Placement Best Practices
Ring doorbells that face outward toward the homeowner's own porch, walkway, driveway, and public sidewalk record areas with minimal privacy expectations. Avoiding angles that capture views into neighbors' homes, bedrooms, or bathrooms keeps the installation well within Ohio's legal framework.
HOA Rules and Ring Doorbells in Ohio
Ohio's Planned Community Law, codified in Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 5312, provides the legal framework for homeowners associations in planned communities. Condominium associations operate under a separate chapter (ORC Chapter 5311).
HOA Authority Over Exterior Modifications
Ohio HOAs derive their authority from their declaration, bylaws, and rules adopted by the board of directors under ORC § 5312.06. If the community's governing documents include architectural standards or restrictions on exterior modifications, the HOA may have the power to regulate or require pre-approval for Ring doorbell installation.
The declaration of a planned community can impose use restrictions, architectural review requirements, and aesthetic standards on individual lots. A Ring doorbell mounted on the front door could fall under these provisions, depending on the specific language of the community's CC&Rs.
Condo Associations
Ohio condominium unit owners face slightly different rules. Under ORC Chapter 5311, common elements (including building exteriors) are typically controlled by the association. A Ring doorbell mounted on a condo's exterior may require board approval because it attaches to a common element. Reviewing the condo declaration and bylaws before installation is the safest approach.
Navigating HOA Requirements
Before installing a Ring doorbell in an Ohio HOA or condo community, residents should review the declaration, bylaws, and any architectural review guidelines. Submitting a written request to the architectural review committee, if one exists, creates a paper trail. Some Ohio communities have adopted specific policies that address doorbell cameras, sometimes permitting them with conditions on size, placement, or color.
Landlord and Tenant Rights
Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act (Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 5321) governs the relationship between landlords and tenants, including each party's obligations regarding the rental property.
Tenant Installation Rights
Under ORC § 5321.05, Ohio tenants have an obligation not to intentionally or negligently destroy, deface, damage, or remove any fixture, appliance, or other part of the premises. Installing a Ring doorbell that requires drilling holes into a door frame or wall could be considered damaging the premises without the landlord's consent.
Tenants should check the lease for clauses about exterior modifications, security devices, or alterations. Getting the landlord's written permission before installing any Ring device prevents disputes. Battery-powered Ring models that use adhesive mounts cause less physical impact to the property but may still fall under lease restrictions on exterior changes.

Landlord Rights and Restrictions
Ohio landlords who install Ring doorbells on rental properties must comply with the same wiretapping and privacy laws that apply to all Ohio residents. Under ORC § 5321.04, landlords must not abuse the right of access to the rental unit. Using a Ring doorbell to monitor a tenant's comings and goings or to record tenant conversations could raise legal issues under both the wiretapping statute and the landlord's duty not to interfere with the tenant's quiet enjoyment.
Landlords who provide Ring doorbells as part of the property should clearly disclose the device and its capabilities in the lease agreement. This transparency protects both parties.
Security Deposit Implications
Ohio landlords may deduct from the security deposit for damages caused by the tenant, including holes or damage from Ring doorbell installation. Under ORC § 5321.16, the landlord must provide an itemized list of deductions within 30 days after the tenancy ends. Tenants who install a Ring without permission and cause damage risk losing part of their deposit.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage
Law enforcement agencies across Ohio regularly seek Ring doorbell footage during investigations. Understanding how police access this footage helps Ring owners know their rights.
Voluntary Sharing and Warrants
Ohio police can ask a homeowner to voluntarily share Ring footage. The homeowner can agree or decline without legal penalty. If the homeowner declines, law enforcement can obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause, or a subpoena, to compel Amazon (Ring's parent company) to produce the footage.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution both protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ohio courts have consistently held that digital data stored by third parties still receives some constitutional protection.

Ring's Evolving Law Enforcement Policies
Ring's relationship with law enforcement has shifted repeatedly. In January 2024, Ring ended its "Request for Assistance" feature that allowed police to directly request footage from users through the Neighbors app. In 2025, Ring partnered with Axon to launch a new "Community Requests" system. Under this program, police submit requests tied to active investigation case numbers, Axon reviews those requests, and Ring users can opt in to share short clips. Users who decline are not identified to law enforcement. Footage shared through the system is encrypted and stored in Axon's secure evidence database.
Emergency Exceptions
Under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2702), Ring may disclose customer footage to law enforcement without user consent when the company believes in good faith that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury requires immediate disclosure. Ring determines what qualifies as an emergency, and no court review is required before the disclosure occurs.
FTC Enforcement History
The Federal Trade Commission took action against Ring LLC in May 2023, charging that Ring employees and contractors had unrestricted access to customer video from private spaces including bedrooms and children's rooms. Ring agreed to pay $5.8 million in consumer refunds. The FTC distributed more than $5.6 million to 117,044 affected customers in April 2024, a single round of PayPal refund payments.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Ohio
Ohio imposes significant penalties for recording violations. The classification depends on which statute is violated.
Illegal Interception of Communications (§ 2933.52)
Violating Ohio's wiretapping statute is a fourth-degree felony. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14, a fourth-degree felony carries a definite prison term of 6 to 18 months. Under § 2929.18, fines for a fourth-degree felony can reach up to $5,000. A felony conviction also creates a permanent criminal record.
Voyeurism (§ 2907.08)
Voyeurism offenses are misdemeanors for most divisions, but recording a minor is a felony:
- Division (A) violation: third-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine
- Division (B) violation: second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine
- Division (C) violation (secretly recording a minor to view private areas): felony of the fifth degree, punishable by 6 to 12 months in prison and up to a $2,500 fine
- Division (D) violation: first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine
Voyeurism convictions can trigger sex offender registration requirements under ORC Chapter 2950.
Civil Remedies
Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.65 provides a civil cause of action for anyone whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the wiretapping statute. The aggrieved person can recover actual damages (but not less than liquidated damages of $200 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Ohio
Following these guidelines helps Ohio residents use Ring doorbell cameras within the boundaries of state law.
Position the Camera Toward Your Own Property
Aim the Ring doorbell at your front door, porch, walkway, and driveway. Avoid pointing the camera at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bedroom or bathroom windows. Recording publicly visible areas like sidewalks and streets is generally permissible.
Consider Disabling Audio Recording
Turning off the microphone in the Ring app eliminates the primary legal risk under Ohio's wiretapping statute. The video recording alone provides significant security value. Ohio homeowners who keep audio enabled should answer through the Ring app's two-way talk feature to ensure they are a party to any recorded conversation.
Post a Notice of Recording
Ohio does not require signage for residential security cameras, but posting a visible notice near the Ring doorbell that audio and video recording is in progress strengthens a legal defense. Visitors who see the notice and continue approaching may be considered to have consented to recording.
Review HOA, Condo, and Lease Terms
Homeowners in planned communities should review their declaration and bylaws before installing a Ring doorbell. Condo owners should check whether the device attaches to a common element that requires board approval. Tenants should get written landlord permission before installation.
Know Your Rights With Police
Ohio homeowners are not required to share Ring footage with police voluntarily. If law enforcement requests footage, the homeowner can decline and ask the officer to obtain a warrant. Sharing footage is a personal decision unless a valid court order compels production.
Secure Your Ring Account
The FTC's 2023 enforcement action against Ring underscored the importance of account security. Enable two-factor authentication, use a strong unique password, and keep the Ring app and device firmware updated. These measures protect against unauthorized access to stored footage.
More Ohio Laws
Ohio has additional laws that affect residents' daily lives. Here are related legal topics:
- Ohio Recording Laws cover all aspects of audio and video recording consent in the state.
- Ohio Hit and Run Laws explain the legal requirements after a traffic accident.
- Ohio Lemon Law protects consumers who purchase defective vehicles.
This article provides general legal information about Ring doorbell laws in Ohio, not legal advice. Laws and their interpretations can change. Consult an attorney licensed in Ohio for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to use a Ring doorbell in Ohio?
Yes, using a Ring doorbell is legal in Ohio. Video recording from your own property is broadly permitted. Audio recording is legal when you participate in the conversation being recorded, satisfying Ohio's one-party consent requirement under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52. Disabling the audio feature in the Ring app eliminates the primary legal risk if you are concerned about recording conversations you are not part of.
Can my neighbor's Ring doorbell legally record my property in Ohio?
A Ring doorbell that captures video of areas visible from public spaces, such as a shared sidewalk or driveway, is generally legal in Ohio. If the camera is deliberately aimed to record areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through your windows, that could implicate Ohio's voyeurism statute (§ 2907.08), which applies when the recording is made for the purpose of viewing that person's private areas. The key factors are whether the recorded area is one where a person would reasonably expect privacy and what the recording was made for.
What are the penalties for illegally recording someone with a Ring doorbell in Ohio?
Illegally intercepting communications under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 is a fourth-degree felony, punishable by 6 to 18 months in prison and up to a $5,000 fine. Victims can also pursue civil damages under § 2933.65, recovering at least $10,000 in liquidated damages plus attorney fees. Most voyeurism charges under § 2907.08 are misdemeanors carrying 60 to 180 days in jail, but recording or photographing a minor under § 2907.08(C) is a fifth-degree felony punishable by 6 to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to $2,500.
Can Ohio police force me to hand over my Ring doorbell footage?
Ohio police cannot compel you to share Ring footage through a verbal request alone. You can voluntarily share footage or decline. If you decline, police can obtain a search warrant or subpoena to compel Amazon (Ring's parent company) to produce the footage. In emergencies involving imminent danger of death or serious injury, Ring may share footage with law enforcement without the owner's consent under federal law.
Can my Ohio HOA or condo association ban Ring doorbells?
Potentially, yes. Ohio HOAs operating under ORC Chapter 5312 and condo associations under ORC Chapter 5311 derive their authority from their declarations and bylaws. If the governing documents restrict exterior modifications or require architectural review, the association may regulate or prohibit Ring doorbell installation. Review your community's declaration and bylaws before purchasing a Ring doorbell.
Updates
Corrected the voyeurism section to remove an unsupported repeat-offender penalty enhancement, added the purpose element that Ohio Rev. Code 2907.08 requires, restored the full text of the one-party-consent exception in 2933.52(B)(4), and softened an unverifiable claim about Ohio case law.
Corrected the FTC's April 2024 Ring refund distribution to the actual single $5.6 million payment to 117,044 customers (the page had invented a $3.9M/$1.5M two-tranche breakdown), and added ORC 2907.08(C), which makes secretly recording a minor a fifth-degree felony rather than a misdemeanor like the other voyeurism divisions.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Ohio Revised Code
§ 2933.52Interception of wire, oral or electronic communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(A) No person purposely shall do any of the following: (1) Intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or attempt to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Use, attempt to use, or procure another person to use or attempt to use an interception device to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 64 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Bidinost (1994) held R.C. 2933.52(A)'s ban on purposeful interception applies to cordless telephone conversations intercepted and recorded on a baby monitor, requiring suppression. State v. Childs (2000) held the party seeking to suppress bears the burden of proving a 2933.52(A)(1) violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)✓During a prison siege, FBI agents used tunnel microphones to record rioting inmates' conversations without a warrant; the court held those interceptions were exempt under former Section 2933.52(B)(1), Ohio's exception for interceptions made under federal wiretap law.
- State v. Childs (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 558)✓A defendant sought to suppress tapes of her own conversations as intercepted in violation of Section 2933.52(A)(1), but no one proved whether the other party consented; the court held the party seeking suppression carries the burden of proof, so the motion failed.
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)✓A neighbor's baby monitor began picking up the defendant's cordless phone calls, and at police direction she recorded them; the court held that was a purposeful interception barred by Section 2933.52(A) and that the recordings had to be suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Audio Recording Laws: Consent, Devices, and Penalties, Ohio Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Privacy, Cameras, and Rights, Ohio Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent
§ 2907.08VoyeurismIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(A) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the person's self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another, to spy or eavesdrop upon another.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 97 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ohio courts have applied R.C. 2907.08 to conduct concealed from the victim. State v. Sipple (2021) held the state need not prove an image was actually captured to sustain an attempted-voyeurism conviction. State v. Goldblum (2014) held that acts committed while the victims slept satisfied the surreptitious-invasion element.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sipple (Ohio Court of Appeals 2021, 170 N.E.3d 1273)✓Sipple put his phone under a woman's dress at an event without her knowledge. The court affirmed his attempted voyeurism conviction under R.C. 2907.08(D), holding the state need not prove a photo was taken and that stealth without her authority was surreptitious.
- State v. Goldblum (Ohio Court of Appeals 2014, 2014 Ohio 5068)✓Goldblum lifted the covers and clothing off girls sleeping at his home and stared at their genitals. Affirming convictions under R.C. 2907.08(C), the court held acts done while the victims slept surreptitiously invaded their privacy and that sexual purpose could be inferred.
- State v. Huffman (Ohio Court of Appeals 2006, 165 Ohio App. 3d 518)✓Huffman hid wireless cameras in his tanning salon rooms and recorded patrons, including a minor. Affirming convictions under R.C. 2907.08(B) and (C), the court held digital video is a series of photographs, so recording video counted as photographing under the statute.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Ohio Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy, Ohio School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Surveillance
§ 2933.51Wiretapping, electronic surveillance definitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
As used in sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code: (A) "Wire communication" means an aural transfer that is made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wires or similar methods of connecting the point of origin of the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 37 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)“…s, violated inmates’ rights to private communications under R.C. 2933.51 et seq. as it existed before the 1996…”
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…of "wire communication[s]" or "oral communication[s]." R.C. 2933.51(A) defines "wire communication" as "any…”
- State v. Raber (Ohio Court of Appeals 2010, 189 Ohio App. 3d 396)“…ext messages in compliance with the warrant requirements of R.C. 2933.51 et seq. According to Raber, the state n…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 2933.65Civil and criminal actions for wiretapping and electronic surveillance violationsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communications are intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code may bring a civil action to recover from the person or entity that engaged in the violation any relief that may be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…se of an interception warrant. See R.C. 2933.52(B)(1). 8 R.C. 2933.65 provides, in part: "(A) Any person…”
- Choby v. Aylsworth, 2006-L-144 (6-29-2007) (Ohio Court of Appeals 2007, 2007 Ohio 3375)“…ity), R.C. 2307.60 (civil recovery for criminal act), and R.C. 2933.65 (civil remedy for interception of wire…”
- John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 160 F.3d 343)“…parties to the intercepted communications. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2933.65 (Banks-Baldwin 1998) (reprinting the pr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules, Penalties, and Compliance, Ohio Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Ohio Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
§ 5312.06Powers and duties of owner's associationIn force
(A) The owners association, through its board of directors, shall do both of the following: (1) Annually adopt and amend an estimated budget for revenues and expenditures.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Townhomes at French Creek Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Woods (Ohio Court of Appeals 2018, 2018 Ohio 2445)“…document shall control.” Id. {¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 5312.06(A)(2), an owners association, through i…”
- Lubow v. Haaf Farms Homeowner's Ass'n (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Fairfield County 2017, 2017 Ohio 2973)“…homeowners association is required to collect assessments. R.C 5312.06(A)(2) requires the owners association t…”
- Millbrook Assn., Inc. v. Wills (Ohio Court of Appeals 2025, 2025 Ohio 5108)“…rom property owners to pay for common expenses. R.C. 5312.06(A)(2). An owners’ association may…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5321.05Tenant obligationsIn force
(A) A tenant who is a party to a rental agreement shall do all of the following: (1) Keep that part of the premises that he occupies and uses safe and sanitary; (2) Dispose of all rubbish, garbage, and other waste in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner; (3) Keep all plumbing fixtures in the dwelling…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 104 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Vardeman v. Llewellyn (Ohio Supreme Court 1985, 17 Ohio St. 3d 24)“…of the tenant not having complied with the requirements of R.C. 5321.05. Subsection (B) further requires the la…”
- Hines v. Riley (Ohio Court of Appeals 1998, 129 Ohio App. 3d 379)“…titled to recover her reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to R.C. 5321.05(C) and that the trial court erred by fa…”
- Albreqt v. Chen (Ohio Court of Appeals 1983, 17 Ohio App. 3d 79)“…ual damages caused by reason of tenant's noncompliance with R.C. 5321.05 or the rental agreement is incons…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5321.04Landlord obligationsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(A) A landlord who is a party to a rental agreement shall do all of the following: (1) Comply with the requirements of all applicable building, housing, health, and safety codes that materially affect health and safety; (2) Make all repairs and do whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 335 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce (Ohio Supreme Court 2002, 96 Ohio St. 3d 266)“…by the landlord’s failure to fulfill the duties imposed by R.C. 5321.04.” Id., 68 Ohio St.2d 20 , 22 0.0…”
- Robinson v. Bates (Ohio Supreme Court 2006, 112 Ohio St. 3d 17)“…de that Bates, as the landlord, had violated her duty under R.C. 5321.04(A)(2) to repair the leased premises and…”
- Anderson v. Ceccardi (Ohio Supreme Court 1983, 6 Ohio St. 3d 110)“…2d 20, 25-26 [ 22 O.O.3d 152 ], this court stated that “R.C. 5321.04 imposes duties on the landlord to make…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Landlord-Tenant Laws (2026): Deposits, Notice, and Tenant Rights
§ 5321.16Procedures for security depositsIn force
(A) Any security deposit in excess of fifty dollars or one month's periodic rent, whichever is greater, shall bear interest on the excess at the rate of five per cent per annum if the tenant remains in possession of the premises for six months or more, and shall be computed and paid annually by the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 200 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. Padgett (Ohio Supreme Court 1987, 32 Ohio St. 3d 344)“…iable for double damages and reasonable attorney fees under R.C. 5321.16(C), where the landlord timely furnishes…”
- Christe v. GMS Management Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals 1997, 124 Ohio App. 3d 84)“…ror “The trial court improperly found a violation of R.C. 5321.16(B) compounding that error by awarding d…”
- Vardeman v. Llewellyn (Ohio Supreme Court 1985, 17 Ohio St. 3d 24)“…oscriptions. The majority then sets forth the provisions of R.C. 5321.16(C) and, thereafter, completely disregar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2929.14Definite prison termsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(A) Except as provided in division (B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3), (B)(4), (B)(5), (B)(6), (B)(7), (B)(8), (B)(9), (B)(10), (B)(11), (E), (G), (H), (J), or (K) of this section or in division (D)(6) of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code and except in relation to an offense for which a sentence of death or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 10,995 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Foster (Ohio Supreme Court 2006, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1)“…ts reasons for imposing the maximum sentence as required by R.C. 2929.14(C) and 2929.19(B)(2)(d), Quinones’s sen…”
- State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion) (Ohio Supreme Court 2016, 146 Ohio St. 3d 516)“…n-year prison term. The maximum possible term was 11 years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1). {¶ 5} Marcum appealed her…”
- State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion) (Ohio Supreme Court 2014, 140 Ohio St. 3d 209)“…use the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 2012-0hio-5150, ¶ 5. The appella…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2702Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or recordsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c)— a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service— on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 259 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (2006) held Sections 2702 and 2707 do not support secondary liability claims such as aiding and abetting or conspiracy. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless (2017) applied Section 2702(c)(4)'s emergency exception and found a provider's good-faith reliance on a law enforcement request a complete defense.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LL (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2017, 875 F.3d 243)✓A detective sent Verizon a certified emergency form after an arson, and Verizon released the subscriber's non-content cell records; the Fifth Circuit applied an objective good faith standard to section 2702(c)(4) and held Verizon statutorily immune from the SCA suit.
- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 552 F.3d 1077)“…rs, alleging violations of federal electronic privacy law, 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (a). A subclass of AOL members who are…”
- Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2006, 457 F.3d 1001)✓Users whose message board posts were seized from a website operator and passed to DirecTV sued for aiding and abetting and conspiracy; the Ninth Circuit held sections 2702 and 2707 name who can be liable and do not support secondary liability, affirming dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Stored Communications Act Explained: 18 U.S.C. § 2701, Georgia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Hawaii Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Ohio Revised Code § 5312.01 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 - Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51 - Definitions (Wiretapping)(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08 - Voyeurism(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 - Definite Prison Terms (Felony Sentencing)(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.65 - Civil Remedies for Unlawful Interception(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 5312 - Planned Community Law(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.05 - Tenant Obligations(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.04 - Landlord Obligations(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- FTC Says Ring Employees Illegally Surveilled Customers (May 2023)(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Sends Refunds to Ring Customers (April 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2702 - Electronic Communications Privacy Act(law.cornell.edu)