Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4933
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.18 (2026)

Tampering with utility equipment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
June 11, 2012
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 487 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) In a prosecution for a theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, that involves alleged tampering with a gas, electric, steam, or water meter, conduit, or attachment of a utility that has been disconnected by the utility, proof that a meter, conduit, or attachment of a utility has been tampered with is prima-facie evidence that the person who is obligated to pay for the service rendered through the meter, conduit, or attachment and is in possession or control of the meter, conduit, or attachment at the time the tampering occurred has caused the tampering with intent to commit a theft offense.

In a prosecution for a theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, that involves the alleged reconnection of a gas, electric, steam, or water meter, conduit, or attachment of a utility that has been disconnected by the utility, proof that a meter, conduit, or attachment disconnected by a utility has been reconnected without the consent of the utility is prima-facie evidence that the person in possession or control of the meter, conduit, or attachment at the time of the reconnection has reconnected the meter, conduit, or attachment with intent to commit a theft offense.

(B) As used in this section:

(1) "Utility" means any electric light company, gas company, natural gas company, pipe-line company, water-works company, or heating or cooling company, as defined by division (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), or (H) of section 4905.03 of the Revised Code, its lessees, trustees, or receivers, or any similar utility owned or operated by a political subdivision.

(2) "Tamper" means to interfere with, damage, or by-pass a utility meter, conduit, or attachment with the intent to impede the correct registration of a meter or the proper functions of a conduit or attachment so as to reduce the amount of utility service that is registered on the meter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: State v. Fisher, 2010 Ohio 5192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fisher, 2010 Ohio 5192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “On appeal, Fisher asserts that she was denied due process because the complaint failed to state the essential elements of the offense; that the trial court erred in allowing the State to interject a reliance on R.C. 4933.18 after it had rested and she had moved for acquittal;…”
State v. Richardson, 2013 Ohio 1953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “) R.C. 4933.18(B)(2). -4- Clermont CA2012-06-043 {¶ 14} We find that appellant's conduct in removing the safe from Carlock's home to Lewis's car constitutes "tampering" for purposes of safecracking.”
State v. Zinmeister, 501 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “24); one count of tampering with a public utility (in violation of R.C. 4933.18); one count of theft of utility service (in violation of R.”
State v. Flowers, 574 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “19, in violation of R.C. 4933.18; and (5) possession of criminal tools in violation of R.”
State v. Clements, 8 Ohio App. Unrep. 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “Clements, was indicted on January 19, 1989, for tampering with utility equipment in violation of R.C. 4933.18, and theft of utility services in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.18(A) — 2 cases
State v. Fisher, 2010 Ohio 5192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “On appeal, Fisher asserts that she was denied due process because the complaint failed to state the essential elements of the offense; that the trial court erred in allowing the State to interject a reliance on R.C. 4933.18 after it had rested and she had moved for acquittal;…”
State v. Flowers, 574 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “19, in violation of R.C. 4933.18; and (5) possession of criminal tools in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.18(B) — 1 case
State v. Flowers, 574 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “19, in violation of R.C. 4933.18; and (5) possession of criminal tools in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.18(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Richardson, 2013 Ohio 1953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “) R.C. 4933.18(B)(2). -4- Clermont CA2012-06-043 {¶ 14} We find that appellant's conduct in removing the safe from Carlock's home to Lewis's car constitutes "tampering" for purposes of safecracking.”
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.