Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2933 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81 (2026)

Electronic recording during custodial interrogation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 15, 2021
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 8 - 134th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Custodial interrogation" means any interrogation involving a law enforcement officer's questioning that is reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses and in which a reasonable person in the subject's position would consider self to be in custody, beginning when a person should have been advised of the person's right to counsel and right to remain silent and of the fact that anything the person says could be used against the person, as specified by the United States supreme court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, and subsequent decisions, and ending when the questioning has completely finished.

(2) "Detention facility" has the same meaning as in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code.

(3) "Electronic recording" or "electronically recorded" means an audio or audiovisual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record of a custodial interrogation.

(4) "Law enforcement agency" has the same meaning as in section 109.573 of the Revised Code.

(5) "Law enforcement vehicle" means a vehicle primarily used by a law enforcement agency or by an employee of a law enforcement agency for official law enforcement purposes.

(6) "Local correctional facility" has the same meaning as in section 2903.13 of the Revised Code.

(7) "Place of detention" means a jail, police or sheriff's station, holding cell, state correctional institution, local correctional facility, detention facility, or department of youth services facility. "Place of detention" does not include a law enforcement vehicle.

(8) "State correctional institution" has the same meaning as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.

(9) "Statement" means an oral, written, sign language, or nonverbal communication.

(B) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, all oral statements made by a person who is the suspect of a violation of or possible violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03, a violation of section 2903.04 or 2903.06 that is a felony of the first or second degree, a violation of section 2907.02 or 2907.03, or an attempt to commit a violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention shall be electronically recorded. A failure to electronically record a custodial interrogation does not create a private cause of action against any person or agency.

(C) Division (B) of this section does not apply in any of the following circumstances:

(1) The person subject to interrogation requests that the interrogation not be recorded, as long as this request is preserved by electronic recording or in writing.

(2) The recording equipment malfunctions.

(3) There are exigent circumstances related to public safety.

(4) The interrogation occurs outside of the state of Ohio.

(5) The statements are made during routine processing or booking.

(6) The statements are made spontaneously and not in response to interrogation.

(7) The interrogation occurs when no law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation has reason to believe that the individual attempted to commit, conspired to commit, was complicit in committing, or committed an offense listed in division (B) of this section.

(D) If a law enforcement agency fails to electronically record a custodial interrogation as required by division (B) of this section, the court shall do whichever of the following is applicable:

(1) If the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the circumstances listed in division (C) of this section applies, the court shall admit the evidence without a cautionary instruction to the jury.

(2) If the prosecution does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the circumstances listed in division (C) of this section applies, the court shall provide a cautionary instruction to the jury that it may consider the failure to record the custodial interrogation in determining the reliability of the evidence.

(F)(1) Law enforcement personnel shall clearly identify and catalog every electronic recording of a custodial interrogation that is recorded pursuant to this section.

(2) If a criminal or delinquent child proceeding is brought against a person who was the subject of a custodial interrogation that was electronically recorded, law enforcement personnel shall preserve the recording until the later of when all appeals, post-conviction relief proceedings, and habeas corpus proceedings are final and concluded or the expiration of the period of time within which such appeals and proceedings must be brought.

(3) Upon motion by the defendant in a criminal proceeding or the alleged delinquent child in a delinquent child proceeding, the court may order that a copy of an electronic recording of a custodial interrogation of the person be preserved for any period beyond the expiration of all appeals, post-conviction relief proceedings, and habeas corpus proceedings.

(4) If no criminal or delinquent child proceeding is brought against a person who was the subject of a custodial interrogation that was electronically recorded pursuant to this section, law enforcement personnel are not required to preserve the related recording.

Last updated July 9, 2021 at 4:34 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: State v. Barker (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 2708 (Ohio 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barker (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 2708 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 120× “” 2014-Ohio-3245, ¶ 12 , citing R.C. 2933.81. The court stated that nothing in the record refuted the presumption that Barker’s statements were voluntary.”
State v. Johnson, 2015 Ohio 5491 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “{¶ 27} Johnson also argues that the trial court should not have believed the officers’ testimony about the interviews because they failed to comply with R.C. 2933.81(B), which creates a presumption that statements made during a custodial interrogation, by a person suspected of…”
State v. Barker, 2016 Ohio 7059 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “In doing so, we referenced an Ohio statute, R.C. 2933.81(B), which creates a presumption that electronically recorded statements by suspects of certain crimes are voluntary.”
State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Ohio, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.81 (B) (2010) ("All statements made by a person who is the suspect of a violation of or possible violation of * * * a felony of the first or second degree, * * * during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention are presumed to be…”
Washington v. Eppinger, 2020 Ohio 3851 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Washington’s Miranda claim in Washington I, the First District applied R.C. 2933.81, which provides, in relevant part, that when the police make “an audio and visual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record” of the interrogation, the suspect’s statements made…”
State v. Washington, 2014 Ohio 4178 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “To encourage the police to record the custodial interrogation of suspects accused of homicide or serious sex offenses, the General Assembly has provided that when the police make “an audio and visual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record” of the…”
In re A.S., 2020 Ohio 5490 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “In Barker, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether the statutory presumption of voluntariness under R.C. 2933.81(B), based on an electronically recorded interrogation, applied to juveniles.”
State v. Barker, 2014 Ohio 3245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “” We conclude that this statement by Detective Ballman, made before the detective asked for the spelling of Tyshawn’s name, his birthdate, address and telephone number, did not act to coerce Tyshawn into making a statement.”
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 27× “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
State v. Barker, 2016 Ohio 8476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “And on appeal from our decision, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction not to review that determination, but to determine whether the presumption of voluntariness contained in R.”
State v. Scullin, 2019 Ohio 3186 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “81(B), when an interrogation is recorded electronically, as was the case here, a defendant’s statements during the recorded interrogation are presumed to be voluntary.”
State v. Jones, 2012 Ohio 5334 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Pursuant to R.C. 2933.81(B), such an interrogation is presumed to be voluntary if the statements made by the person are electronically recorded.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(A)(3) — 2 cases
Washington v. Eppinger, 2020 Ohio 3851 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Washington’s Miranda claim in Washington I, the First District applied R.C. 2933.81, which provides, in relevant part, that when the police make “an audio and visual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record” of the interrogation, the suspect’s statements made…”
State v. Washington, 2014 Ohio 4178 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “To encourage the police to record the custodial interrogation of suspects accused of homicide or serious sex offenses, the General Assembly has provided that when the police make “an audio and visual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record” of the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(B) — 14 cases
State v. Barker (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 2708 (Ohio 2016). “” 2014-Ohio-3245, ¶ 12 , citing R.C. 2933.81. The court stated that nothing in the record refuted the presumption that Barker’s statements were voluntary.”
State v. Barker, 2016 Ohio 7059 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “In doing so, we referenced an Ohio statute, R.C. 2933.81(B), which creates a presumption that electronically recorded statements by suspects of certain crimes are voluntary.”
State v. Johnson, 2015 Ohio 5491 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 27} Johnson also argues that the trial court should not have believed the officers’ testimony about the interviews because they failed to comply with R.C. 2933.81(B), which creates a presumption that statements made during a custodial interrogation, by a person suspected of…”
State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (R.I. 2011). “See Ohio, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.81 (B) (2010) ("All statements made by a person who is the suspect of a violation of or possible violation of * * * a felony of the first or second degree, * * * during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention are presumed to be…”
Washington v. Eppinger, 2020 Ohio 3851 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Washington’s Miranda claim in Washington I, the First District applied R.C. 2933.81, which provides, in relevant part, that when the police make “an audio and visual recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record” of the interrogation, the suspect’s statements made…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(C) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 2015 Ohio 5491 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 27} Johnson also argues that the trial court should not have believed the officers’ testimony about the interviews because they failed to comply with R.C. 2933.81(B), which creates a presumption that statements made during a custodial interrogation, by a person suspected of…”
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(D) — 1 case
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(D)(1) — 1 case
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.81(D)(2) — 1 case
State v. Koonce, 2026 Ohio 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 13} Regarding the recording of the interview, the court found that R.C. 2933.81 applied. That statute requires that all oral statements made by a suspect in a murder case during a custodial interrogation in a place of detention be recorded.”
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.