(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. 3d Dist. 2003).
State v. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). · cites it 65דSnyder 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 (2002). · cites it 40ד{¶ 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, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264. · cites it 42ד] 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. 1st Dist. 2004). · cites it 18ד19943, 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. · cites it 9ד02(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. · cites it 5ד{¶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. · cites it 12ד” 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. 3d Dist. 2007). · cites it 11ד{¶ 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. · cites it 14דImportuning 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. 2d Dist. 2004). · cites it 9דAfter the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Goode, 2023-Ohio-863. · cites it 9דR.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 2ד" 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.”
State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062. “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. “” 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. Thompson, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264 (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, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264. “] 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. Davis, 2017-Ohio-2916. “{¶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. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 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. “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. Andrews, 870 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2007).
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). “After the alleged crime, subsection (E) was renumbered as R.C. 2907.07(D), but otherwise remained the same.”
State v. Maisch, 880 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 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. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 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. Goode, 2023-Ohio-863. “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. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 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. 3d Dist. 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. Snyder, 801 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 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. 1st Dist. 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. 2d Dist. 2004). “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. “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. Maisch, 880 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 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.