(A) Whoever violates division (C) of section 102.02 or division (C) of section 102.031 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(B) Whoever violates division (D) of section 102.02 or section 102.021, 102.03, 102.04, or 102.07 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(C) In addition to the penalty provided in division (B) of this section, whoever violates division (M)(1), (2), or (3) of section 102.03 of the Revised Code forfeits the individual's office or employment.
(D) In addition to the penalty provided in division (B) of this section, any person who violates division (F) of section 102.03 of the Revised Code is subject to the following:
(1) The court may prohibit the person from participating in a public contract with any public agency in this state for a period of two years if recommended by the agency by whom the offending public official or employee was employed.
(2) The court may order the person to pay an additional fine equal to the amount of any thing of value given in violation of division (F) of section 102.03 of the Revised Code.
(E) Upon application of the Ohio ethics commission, the court shall order a person who is convicted of a violation of section 102.021, 102.03, or 102.04 of the Revised Code to pay the costs incurred to investigate and prosecute the case. The amount ordered under this division shall not exceed the amount a person unlawfully secured, solicited, or accepted; the amount a person received as improper compensation, as an unlawful honorarium, or from the unlawful sale of goods or services; or the amount otherwise applicable under section 102.021, 102.03, or 102.04 of the Revised Code. These costs are in addition to any other cost or penalty provided in the Revised Code or any other provision of law.
Last updated March 8, 2023 at 10:53 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case:
Brinkman v. Budish, 692 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ohio 2010).
Brinkman v. Budish, 692 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ohio 2010).
· cites it 2× “See O.R.C. § 102.99(B). JLEC has issued a memorandum interpreting O.”
State v. Yavorcik, 2018 Ohio 1824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“03(B) by Yavorcik's political opponent-under R.C. 102.99(B) it is a first-degree misdemeanor offense to disclose a document "designated" confidential.”
State v. Fraley, 2020 Ohio 3763 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“R.C. 102.99(B). {¶ 3} The clerk forwarded Hicks' affidavit to the trial court, but all the judges of the court recused themselves from the matter, requiring the Supreme Court of Ohio to appoint a visiting judge to review the affidavit.”
Disciplinary Couns. v. Taft, 2006 Ohio 6525 (Ohio 2006).
“R.C. 102.99(B). The next day, respondent pleaded no contest to the charges and was found guilty.”
Bentkowski v. Trafis, 2015 Ohio 5139 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “[Bentkowski] also argues that the release of the police record was a violation of R.C. 102.99(B)[.] *** [However,] Bentkowski fails to identify a specific section of the Ohio Revised Code which expressly imposes liability upon the [City] Defendants for the release of the records…”
State v. Towns, 2022 Ohio 3632 (Ohio 2022).
“R.C. 102.99(B). {¶ 11} Generally, in Ohio, the authority that can be exercised by county prosecuting attorneys and city attorneys or law directors is established by enabling acts.”
State v. Stinebaugh, 2024 Ohio 2677 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
“R.C. 102.99(B). Legal Analysis {¶22} In this appeal, the issue is not whether Stinebaugh acted appropriately with regard to the extension of the public sanitary sewer line.”
Homrighausen v. Dover, 2024 Ohio 5454 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “03 and R.C. §102.99). {¶5} The charges arose after an investigation uncovered irregularities with fees paid to Appellant, the then Mayor, to perform weddings.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 102.99(B): 7 cases
Brinkman v. Budish, 692 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ohio 2010).
“See O.R.C. § 102.99(B). JLEC has issued a memorandum interpreting O.”
State v. Yavorcik, 2018 Ohio 1824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“03(B) by Yavorcik's political opponent-under R.C. 102.99(B) it is a first-degree misdemeanor offense to disclose a document "designated" confidential.”
State v. Fraley, 2020 Ohio 3763 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“R.C. 102.99(B). {¶ 3} The clerk forwarded Hicks' affidavit to the trial court, but all the judges of the court recused themselves from the matter, requiring the Supreme Court of Ohio to appoint a visiting judge to review the affidavit.”
Disciplinary Couns. v. Taft, 2006 Ohio 6525 (Ohio 2006).
“R.C. 102.99(B). The next day, respondent pleaded no contest to the charges and was found guilty.”
Bentkowski v. Trafis, 2015 Ohio 5139 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
“[Bentkowski] also argues that the release of the police record was a violation of R.C. 102.99(B)[.] *** [However,] Bentkowski fails to identify a specific section of the Ohio Revised Code which expressly imposes liability upon the [City] Defendants for the release of the records…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.