Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07 (2026)

Importuning

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 9, 2024
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 161 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall solicit a person who is less than thirteen years of age to engage in sexual activity with the offender, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person.

(B)(1) No person shall solicit another, not the spouse of the offender, to engage in sexual conduct with the offender, when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and four or more years older than the other person, and the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

(2) No person shall solicit another to engage in sexual conduct with the offender, when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and four or more years older than the other person, the other person is sixteen or seventeen years of age and a victim of a violation of section 2905.32 of the Revised Code, and the offender knows or has reckless disregard of the age of the other person.

(C) No person shall solicit a person who is less than sixteen years of age to engage in sexual activity with the offender when the person who is less than sixteen years of age is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition.

(D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, to engage in sexual activity with the offender when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and either of the following applies:

(1) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, and the offender knows that the other person is less than thirteen years of age or is reckless in that regard.

(2) The other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a person who is less than thirteen years of age, and the offender believes that the other person is less than thirteen years of age or is reckless in that regard.

(E) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, to engage in sexual activity with the offender when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and either of the following applies:

(1) The other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, the offender knows that the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age or is reckless in that regard, and the offender is four or more years older than the other person.

(2) The other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, the offender believes that the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age or is reckless in that regard, and the offender is four or more years older than the age the law enforcement officer assumes in posing as the person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age.

(F) Divisions (D) and (E) of this section apply to any solicitation that is contained in a transmission via a telecommunications device that either originates in this state or is received in this state.

(G)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of importuning.

(2) A violation of division (A), (C), or (D) of this section is a felony of the third degree on a first offense, and, notwithstanding division (C) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code, there is a presumption that a prison term shall be imposed as described in division (D) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code. If the offender, in addition to soliciting the other person, arranged to meet the other person for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity, the court shall impose upon the offender as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed in division (A)(3)(b) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a felony of the third degree.

If the offender previously has been convicted of a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense, a violation of division (A), (C), or (D) of this section is a felony of the second degree, and the court shall impose upon the offender as a mandatory prison term one of the definite prison terms prescribed in division (A)(2)(b) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a felony of the second degree, except that if the violation is committed on or after March 22, 2019, the court shall impose as the minimum prison term for the offense a mandatory prison term that is one of the minimum terms prescribed in division (A)(2)(a) of that section for a felony of the second degree.

(3) A violation of division (B) or (E) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree on a first offense, and, notwithstanding division (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code, there is a presumption that a prison term shall be imposed as described in division (D) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code. The court shall impose upon the offender as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed in section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a felony of the fifth degree if both of the following apply:

(a) Either of the following applies:

(i) The offender is ten or more years older than the other person.

(ii) Regarding a violation of division (E)(2) of this section, a law enforcement officer posed as a person thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age and the offender is ten or more years older than the officer claimed to be.

(b) In addition to soliciting the other person, the offender arranged to meet the other person for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.

(4) If the offender previously has been convicted of a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense, a violation of division (B) or (E) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree, and the court shall impose upon the offender as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed in section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a felony of the fourth degree that is not less than twelve months in duration.

Last updated June 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 209 cases (75 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 65× “Snyder contends that the *469 distinction in R.C. 2907.07 between in person solicitation to engage in sexual activity and solicitation to engage in sexual activity through a telecommunications device is arbitrary and capricious, as classified under R.”
State v. Thompson, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 40× “{¶ 1} This cause presents the issue of whether Ohio’s importuning statute, R.C. 2907.07(B), violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.”
State v. Thompson, 2002 Ohio 2124 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 42× “] Criminal law—Importuning—R.C. 2907.07(B) is facially invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”
State v. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “19943, 2004-Ohio-2315 , 2004 WL 1043317 , ¶ 37 (R.C. 2907.07[E][2] is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of the state in promoting the welfare of children).”
State v. Petty, 2017 Ohio 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “02(A)(1)(b), and guilty of Count 2, importuning, in violation of R.C. 2907.07. The trial court found appellant guilty of the repeat violent offender specification.”
State v. Davis, 2017 Ohio 2916 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “{¶6} On August 29, 2016, the police filed a criminal complaint against Davis for importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(1), which is a fourth degree felony.”
State v. Kelly, 2021 Ohio 2007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 12× “” In support of his position, Kelly references the legislative intent behind R.C. 2907.07 claiming it mandates the higher mental state purposely.”
State v. Maisch, 880 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “{¶ 2} On July 21, 2004, Lima police officers arrested Maisch, and contemporaneously, the state filed a complaint against him alleging one count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Steiner, 2016 Ohio 4648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “Importuning in violation of R.C. §2907.07(C)(2) and §2907.07(F)(2) a Felony of the Third Degree; 3.”
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “After the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Goode, 2023 Ohio 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “R.C. 2907.07 provides, in relevant part. (D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.”
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). · cites it 2× “" Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.07 (1975). "Public indecency" comprises "expos[ing one's] private parts," "engag[ing] in masturbation," "engag[ing] in sexual conduct," or "engag[ing] in conduct which to an ordinary observer would appear to be sexual conduct or masturbation.”
Show all 209 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(A) — 60 cases
State v. Petty, 2017 Ohio 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “02(A)(1)(b), and guilty of Count 2, importuning, in violation of R.C. 2907.07. The trial court found appellant guilty of the repeat violent offender specification.”
State v. Kelly, 2021 Ohio 2007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “” In support of his position, Kelly references the legislative intent behind R.C. 2907.07 claiming it mandates the higher mental state purposely.”
State v. Marcum, 2016 Ohio 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Jackson, 2015 Ohio 5490 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Jones, 2020 Ohio 3919 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Holder, 2024 Ohio 4505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Carswell, 2021 Ohio 3379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(A)(4) — 1 case
State v. Sitzes, 2023 Ohio 3915 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(A)(F)(2) — 1 case
State v. Nielsen, 2024 Ohio 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B) — 20 cases
State v. Thompson, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264 (Ohio 2002). “{¶ 1} This cause presents the issue of whether Ohio’s importuning statute, R.C. 2907.07(B), violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.”
State v. Thompson, 2002 Ohio 2124 (Ohio 2002). “] Criminal law—Importuning—R.C. 2907.07(B) is facially invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”
City of Cleveland v. Maistros, 762 N.E.2d 1065 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Presley, 612 N.E.2d 353 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Welch, 2011 Ohio 3243 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(1) — 29 cases
State v. Davis, 2017 Ohio 2916 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶6} On August 29, 2016, the police filed a criminal complaint against Davis for importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(1), which is a fourth degree felony.”
State v. Martinez, 2016 Ohio 5515 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Stober, 2014 Ohio 1568 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Durst, 2020 Ohio 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Haynes, 2013 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(1)(F)(3) — 1 case
State v. Holmes, 2014 Ohio 2724 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Trimble, 2021 Ohio 2609 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Keith, 2024 Ohio 1591 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Cohee, 2020 Ohio 1119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Bugno v. Hunsinger (N.D. Ohio 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(3) — 1 case
State v. Marquand, 2014 Ohio 698 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(B)(l)(f)(3) — 1 case
Ortiz v. Holmes, 157 F. Supp. 3d 692 (N.D. Ohio 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(C) — 5 cases
State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Snyder contends that the *469 distinction in R.C. 2907.07 between in person solicitation to engage in sexual activity and solicitation to engage in sexual activity through a telecommunications device is arbitrary and capricious, as classified under R.”
State v. Petty, 2017 Ohio 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “02(A)(1)(b), and guilty of Count 2, importuning, in violation of R.C. 2907.07. The trial court found appellant guilty of the repeat violent offender specification.”
State v. Burgess, 833 N.E.2d 352 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Rojas, 904 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Layne, 2012 Ohio 1627 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(C)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Jones, 2020 Ohio 3919 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Barnett, 2012 Ohio 3748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Tabor, 2020 Ohio 2855 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Watson, 2024 Ohio 5532 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(C)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Steiner, 2016 Ohio 4648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Importuning in violation of R.C. §2907.07(C)(2) and §2907.07(F)(2) a Felony of the Third Degree; 3.”
State v. Barnett, 2012 Ohio 3748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Sharma, 2016 Ohio 7744 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Layne, 2012 Ohio 1627 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(D) — 5 cases
State v. Andrews, 870 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “After the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Cunningham, 808 N.E.2d 488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Burgess, 833 N.E.2d 352 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Schmelzer, 2024 Ohio 5987 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(D)(1) — 16 cases
State v. Durst, 2020 Ohio 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Gomez, 2019 Ohio 576 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Murphy, 2020 Ohio 4667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Haudenschild, 2024 Ohio 407 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Jirousek, 2013 Ohio 5267 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(D)(2) — 36 cases
State v. Maisch, 880 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “{¶ 2} On July 21, 2004, Lima police officers arrested Maisch, and contemporaneously, the state filed a complaint against him alleging one count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Williams, 2024 Ohio 2307 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “19943, 2004-Ohio-2315 , 2004 WL 1043317 , ¶ 37 (R.C. 2907.07[E][2] is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of the state in promoting the welfare of children).”
State v. Koran, 2022 Ohio 2410 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Goode, 2023 Ohio 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “R.C. 2907.07 provides, in relevant part. (D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(D)(2)(F)(3) — 1 case
State v. McCullough, 2021 Ohio 2616 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(D)(2)(f) — 1 case
State v. Garber, 2022 Ohio 3770 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(E) — 2 cases
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “After the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Snyder contends that the *469 distinction in R.C. 2907.07 between in person solicitation to engage in sexual activity and solicitation to engage in sexual activity through a telecommunications device is arbitrary and capricious, as classified under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(E)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Schmelzer, 2024 Ohio 5987 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Cunningham, 808 N.E.2d 488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(E)(2) — 10 cases
State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Snyder contends that the *469 distinction in R.C. 2907.07 between in person solicitation to engage in sexual activity and solicitation to engage in sexual activity through a telecommunications device is arbitrary and capricious, as classified under R.”
State v. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “19943, 2004-Ohio-2315 , 2004 WL 1043317 , ¶ 37 (R.C. 2907.07[E][2] is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of the state in promoting the welfare of children).”
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “After the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Jain, 2010 Ohio 1712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Schaefer, 801 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(F) — 1 case
State v. Hufford, 2024 Ohio 2667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(F)(2) — 6 cases
State v. Steiner, 2016 Ohio 4648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Importuning in violation of R.C. §2907.07(C)(2) and §2907.07(F)(2) a Felony of the Third Degree; 3.”
State v. Knight, 2022 Ohio 1787 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Murphy, 2020 Ohio 4667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Jones, 2020 Ohio 3919 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Nielsen, 2024 Ohio 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(F)(3) — 7 cases
State v. Goode, 2023 Ohio 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “R.C. 2907.07 provides, in relevant part. (D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.”
State v. Schmelzer, 2024 Ohio 5987 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Grey, 2016 Ohio 3249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Carpenter, 2023 Ohio 2838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Bartholomew, 2020 Ohio 4611 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(G) — 1 case
State v. Schaefer, 801 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(G)(2) — 1 case
State v. Curtis, 2024 Ohio 4625 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.07(d)(2) — 1 case
State v. Maisch, 880 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “{¶ 2} On July 21, 2004, Lima police officers arrested Maisch, and contemporaneously, the state filed a complaint against him alleging one count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), a felony of the fifth degree.”
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.