Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 737
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 737.04 (2026)

Mutual aid contracts for police protection

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 29, 2011
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 153 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The legislative authority of any municipal corporation, in order to obtain police protection or to obtain additional police protection, or to allow its police officers to work in multijurisdictional drug, gang, or career criminal task forces, may enter into contracts with one or more municipal corporations, townships, township police districts, joint police districts, or county sheriffs in this state, with one or more park districts created pursuant to section 511.18 or 1545.01 of the Revised Code, with one or more port authorities, or with a contiguous municipal corporation in an adjoining state, upon any terms that are agreed upon, for services of police departments or the use of police equipment or for the interchange of services of police departments or police equipment within the several territories of the contracting subdivisions.

Chapter 2744. of the Revised Code, insofar as it applies to the operation of police departments, shall apply to the contracting political subdivisions and to the police department members when they are rendering service outside their own subdivisions pursuant to the contracts.

Police department members acting outside the subdivision in which they are employed, pursuant to a contract entered into under this section, shall be entitled to participate in any indemnity fund established by their employer to the same extent as while acting within the employing subdivision. Those members shall be entitled to all the rights and benefits of Chapter 4123. of the Revised Code, to the same extent as while performing service within the subdivision.

The contracts may provide for:

(A) A fixed annual charge to be paid at the times agreed upon and stipulated in the contract;

(B) Compensation based upon:

(1) A stipulated price for each call or emergency;

(2) The number of members or pieces of equipment employed;

(3) The elapsed time of service required in each call or emergency.

(C) Compensation for loss or damage to equipment while engaged in rendering police services outside the limits of the subdivision owning and furnishing the equipment;

(D) Reimbursement of the subdivision in which the police department members are employed for any indemnity award or premium contribution assessed against the employing subdivision for workers' compensation benefits for injuries or death of its police department members occurring while engaged in rendering police services pursuant to the contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Rush v. City of Mansfield, 771 F. Supp. 2d 827 (N.D. Ohio 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rush v. City of Mansfield, 771 F. Supp. 2d 827 (N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 3× “O.R.C. § 737.04. This statute does not address the public or private character of the tasks forces themselves, however.”
State ex rel. Flak v. Betras (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8109 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 2× “R.C. 737.04. It seems unremarkable to require cooperating law-enforcement officers to abide by local city ordinances while they are operating within the city, pursuant to agreement.”
Cline v. City of Mansfield, 745 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 3× “O.R.C. § 737.04. This statute does not address the public or private character of the tasks forces themselves, however.”
Sawicki v. Vill. of Ottawa Hills, 525 N.E.2d 468 (Ohio 1988). “” R.C. 737.04 and 737.10 provided insurance coverage only to those municipal police officers who responded outside their jurisdiction pursuant to a Mutual Aid Pact.”
State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cnty. Court, 597 N.E.2d 116 (Ohio 1992). “We need not reach the merits of this proposition since the question in this prohibition action is whether the county court has jurisdiction, not whether the contract between the municipal corporation and the township with regard to police protection is valid.”
State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 1992 Ohio 132 (Ohio 1992). “We need not reach the merits of this proposition since the question in this prohibition action is whether the county court has jurisdiction, not whether the contract between the municipal corporation and the township with regard to police protection is valid.”
State ex rel. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. City of Coshocton, 448 N.E.2d 834 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “R.C. 737.04 provides, in pertinent part: “Any municipal corporation may, in order to obtain police protection or to obtain additional police protection, enter in *7 to contracts with one or more municipal corporations * * We must give effect to the varying language describing…”
Pinkins v. Mahoning Cty. Task Force, 2021 Ohio 2414 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “For instance, R.C. 737.04 provides a municipal corporation may enter into contracts with other municipal corporations, townships, police districts, or county sheriffs for police services and indicates immunity is applicable.”
Cook v. Springfield Twp. (N.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 2× “11 (“The police force of a municipal corporation shall preserve the peace, protect persons and property, and obey and enforce all ordinances of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation, all criminal laws of the state and the United States .”
State v. Wenzel, 2020 Ohio 1215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “{¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 737.04, political subdivisions may enter into agreements whereby police officers from one jurisdiction may enter into another jurisdiction to provide police services.”
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.