A Recorded Interrogation
ORC 2933.81 — when the recording is required, and when it is not
Ohio requires an electronic recording of a custodial interrogation held at a place of detention for certain serious offences. It is a duty on the agency rather than a right somebody asks for, and it does not reach every interview.
- The duty attaches to a custodial interrogation at a place of detention, which leaves roadside and doorstep questioning outside it.
- It is limited to the offences the statute lists rather than applying to any investigation.
- A statement is not automatically excluded because the recording requirement was not met.
A missing recording is an argument, not an outcome. The statute creates the obligation without making a failure to record a rule that throws the statement out. What the absence of a recording does is give a defendant something to raise about the reliability of what is said to have been said, which is a different thing from suppression.
Whether an interrogation was custodial at all is decided by the same test that decides whether warnings were required, and an ordinary traffic stop is not custody for that purpose. Where a recording does exist, it is a record held by a public office and the public records section covers how one is asked for.
Recording a conversation you are part of is governed by a different statute entirely, and the Recording section sets out Ohio's one party consent rule. This page is about what an agency must do, not about what anybody in the room may do.
Sources for this section (4)
- ORC 2933.81 — Electronic recording of a custodial interrogation
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) — A routine traffic stop is not custody for Miranda purposes
- ORC 149.43 — Availability of public records, including law enforcement video
- ORC 2933.52 — Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Talk to a licensed Ohio attorney about your situation.