Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2917
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.05 (2026)

Use of force to suppress riot or in protecting persons or property during riot

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 1974
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 511 - 109th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

A law enforcement officer or fireman, engaged in suppressing riot or in protecting persons or property during riot:

(A) Is justified in using force, other than deadly force, when and to the extent he has probable cause to believe such force is necessary to disperse or apprehend rioters;

(B) Is justified in using force, including deadly force, when and to the extent he has probable cause to believe such force is necessary to disperse or apprehend rioters whose conduct is creating a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Fields v. Dailey, 587 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fields v. Dailey, 587 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “See, also, R.C. 2917.05. In this case, however, defendants did not premise their self-defense justification upon defendant Dailey's performance of his duties as an officer.”
Treadway v. Columbus Police Dep't (S.D. Ohio 2025). “Both parties’ police procedures experts agree the protest turned into a riot and, under Ohio Revised Code § 2917.05, a law enforcement officer “is justified in using force, other than deadly force, when and to the extent he has probable cause to believe such force is necessary…”
State v. Cunningham, 180 N.E.2d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 4× “Defendant, a member of the police department of the city of East Liverpool, was indicted, tried and convicted of violating Section 2917.05, Revised Code. The indictment recites that defendant did on or about November 9, 1958, “with intent to corrupt a juror, to-wit: Donald…”
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.