Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateOhioIntroduced
HB 1011: Enact the 1984 No More Act
Gary Click
HB 1011 status: Introduced (updated Sep 14, 2026).
Source
OpenStates
Confidence
Low
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
52OUT OF 100
Score:52/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 45/100
Constitutionality75%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion80%
Bill summary
To enact sections 5507.01, 5507.02, and 5507.03 of the Revised Code to limit the use of automated license plate recognition systems and mass surveillance technology for one year, to repeal sections 5507.01, 5507.02, and 5507.03 of the Revised Code one year after the effective date, to abolish the General Assembly limitations governing such systems and technology at that time, and to name this act the 1984 No More Act.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Potential for reduced public spending on surveillance infrastructure during the one-year period
- Encourages a temporary shift in government resource allocation toward non-surveillance priorities
- Reduces immediate compliance and procurement costs for local jurisdictions restricted by the act
Risks
- Direct disruption to revenue streams for vendors specializing in automated license plate recognition technology
- Uncertainty for law enforcement agencies seeking to invest in or maintain current traffic monitoring systems
- Potential loss of value on existing hardware if software dependencies are impacted by the restrictions
Society
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Enhanced protection of individual privacy rights by limiting mass monitoring
- Reduced concerns regarding the normalization of pervasive government surveillance in public spaces
- Provides a period for civil discourse on the intersection of public safety and personal privacy
Risks
- Temporary loss of investigative tools that may assist in locating missing persons or abducted individuals
- Decreased ability of law enforcement to track stolen vehicles or fleeing suspects via automated means
- Perceived reduction in public safety response capabilities for traffic-related crimes
Technology Industry
Critical outlook
40%
Benefits
- Incentivizes technology developers to focus on privacy-preserving features rather than mass data collection
- Encourages vendors to prioritize the security and integrity of their existing systems during the hiatus
- Opportunity for developers to re-evaluate system architectures for greater accountability
Risks
- Direct restrictions on the functional application of ALPR and surveillance software
- Potential for a 'chilling effect' on R&D for surveillance-based hardware and software in the state
- Restrictions force companies to navigate complex state-by-state compliance environments
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
70%
Benefits
- Exercises necessary legislative oversight of emerging surveillance technologies
- Creates a 'cooling off' period for assessing the efficacy of mass surveillance versus rights
- Requires the state to formally acknowledge and define limitations on monitoring technologies
Risks
- Sunset provision lacks a clear mechanism for long-term accountability or permanent policy change
- The temporary nature may result in a rapid return to the status quo without meaningful audit improvements
- Implementation details regarding the 'repeal' after one year remain ambiguous
Public Health & Safety
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Protects public health by preventing the creation of extensive, potentially vulnerable surveillance databases
- Reduces the risk of psychological impact related to constant public monitoring
- Ensures law enforcement relies on traditional investigative techniques that may increase suspect engagement
Risks
- Impedes the ability of public safety agencies to automate the identification of hazardous drivers
- Reduces the efficacy of response for agencies tracking high-risk, time-sensitive threats
- May limit the gathering of data useful for public safety traffic planning and congestion management
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
OpenStates
Official bill text or data from OpenStates.
Confidence
Low
Information is limited or incomplete.
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The bill creates a sunset clause, which means the restrictions are temporary and automatically expire after one year, potentially leading to a return of previous surveillance practices.
Analysis scope
Source information is limited to an OpenStates abstract; full text and statutory definitions are unavailable.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.