You’ve probably heard about the bill to ban police quotas in Ohio. And at first glance, you might’ve thought: Good. About time.
After all, no one wants police writing tickets just to boost city revenue. That feels wrong — and it is. We agree.
But here’s the part that’s getting lost in the headlines: this bill doesn’t just stop unethical quotas. As written, it goes much further. It blocks your local police chiefs from doing their jobs — from setting reasonable performance expectations, from making sure arrests happen when they need to, and from holding officers accountable in meaningful ways.
If you’re someone who wants your neighborhood to be safe, this bill affects you. Not because you support quotas — but because you care about fair, effective policing that actually works.
At the Central Ohio Chiefs Association (COCA), we’ve spent the past year sitting down with communities across Central Ohio — meeting every week with residents, faith leaders, youth advocates, and local business owners. Not once did anyone say they wanted police to stop showing up. What they wanted was fairness. What they wanted was policing done with respect, professionalism, and accountability.
That’s what we want, too.
This blog will explain why revenue-driven quotas need to go — but also why Senate Bill 114, in its current form, could make things worse by tying the hands of police leaders and unintentionally encouraging less enforcement. We’ll show you exactly where the bill goes wrong, how to fix it, and why Ohio needs a justice system that targets crime — not cops.
What’s Good About SB 114
Let’s be clear: not everything in Senate Bill 114 is problematic. In fact, the heart of it is something we agree with completely.
The bill aims to eliminate revenue-driven ticket quotas — the kind that pressure officers to issue a certain number of citations just to generate money for local governments. That’s not policing. That’s taxation through enforcement, and it erodes trust between communities and law enforcement.
Nobody joins the police force to become a tax collector. And no community wants to feel like they’re being targeted just to fill a budget gap.
That’s why COCA supports the intent of SB 114. Policing should be about safety, not income. It should be focused on protecting people, solving crimes, and creating safe communities — not racking up fines.
So in that sense, this bill is right to draw a line. Quotas tied to revenue are wrong. They create the wrong incentives and the wrong outcomes. If SB 114 stayed in that lane, we’d be on board without hesitation.
Where SB 114 Goes Wrong
The problem isn’t that SB 114 tries to ban revenue quotas — the problem is that it doesn’t stop there.
Instead of clearly targeting quotas tied to money, the bill uses vague language that sweeps in things it shouldn’t — like arrests. That might sound like a small detail, but it has big consequences.
Let’s break it down.
The bill prohibits agencies from requiring or suggesting officers make a “finite number” of arrests or citations. But what does “finite number” mean? One? Two? Ten? The bill never says. And without that clarity, even basic employee oversight becomes risky.
Say an officer hasn’t made a single arrest all year — not even one. Under this bill, if a supervisor takes note of that and addresses it, it could be seen as imposing a quota. Even something as normal as reviewing past performance or setting expectations could trigger a complaint to the Attorney General.
That’s not accountability — that’s handcuffing police leadership.
Worse, the bill creates a system where anonymous, unsupported complaints can be sent straight to the Attorney General’s office. No evidence required. That opens the door to politically motivated attacks or personal grudges — not real oversight.
And all of this sends the wrong message, especially now. When crime is rising and repeat offenders are cycling through the system, the last thing Ohio needs is a law that makes it harder for officers to act — or harder for supervisors to expect action.
Because when police stop being proactive, the people who benefit most aren’t law-abiding citizens — they’re the ones breaking the law.
Why This Matters to You
It’s easy to think this is just about internal police policy — but the ripple effect hits your street, your neighborhood, and your family.
Here’s why.
When police departments are discouraged from monitoring arrest activity or holding officers accountable for failing to act, crime grows. Not because officers don’t care — but because the leadership tools that keep enforcement consistent and effective are suddenly off-limits.
Now imagine this playing out in real life:
- A narcotics officer makes no arrests for months. Under this bill, reassigning them could be seen as enforcing a “quota.”
- A juvenile repeatedly steals cars, gets caught, and is released. Under this bill, police supervision is handcuffed from making officers do their job despite their frustration.
- A community plagued by gun violence sees fewer proactive stops and gun seizures because supervisors fear pushback for encouraging results.
This is how “depolicing” starts. Not because anyone orders it — but because the structure makes enforcement harder, riskier, and less supported.
Ohio doesn’t have a quota problem. It has a crime problem.
And what we’ve heard — week after week, from communities across Central Ohio — is not “we want less policing.” It’s: We want fair policing. We want it done right. We want to feel safe. That’s exactly what we want, too.
But when laws prevent supervisors from managing officers, and allow anonymous accusations to trigger investigations without evidence, the result isn’t fairness. It’s fear, hesitation, and fewer arrests — at exactly the time when public safety needs more action, not less.
Policing Isn’t a Burden
There’s a dangerous assumption baked into SB 114: that making arrests is something officers are being forced to do, rather than something they’re trained and sworn to do with honor.
Let’s set the record straight.
Enforcing the law is not a burden for police officers — it’s a duty. And when it’s done respectfully, professionally, and Constitutionally, it’s one of the most important services any public servant can provide.
We know that enforcement alone isn’t the solution to every problem. We know that every interaction matters. And we know the best policing happens when it’s rooted in community trust.
But trust doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to crime. It means acting fairly and consistently — whether that’s making a traffic stop, arresting a repeat offender, or intervening in a dangerous situation.
What communities told us — over a full year of conversations — wasn’t “stop policing us.” It was “police us fairly.” That means showing up when they call. That means enforcing the law when it counts. And yes, that means arresting people who continue to do harm.
Policing, done well, helps victims. It stops cycles of violence. It saves lives.
So let’s be clear: we don’t oppose this bill because we’re trying to avoid oversight. We oppose it because it undermines the very tools police leaders need to ensure enforcement happens the right way — and continues happening at all.
What We’re Asking For
We’re not asking to water down this bill. We’re asking to fix it — so it actually does what it’s supposed to do.
Here’s what needs to change in SB 114 to protect both public safety and public trust:
- Define what a quota actually is
Right now, the bill never clearly defines a “quota.” We support banning quotas tied to revenue — the kind where officers are pressured to write tickets just to raise money. But the bill also lumps in arrests, which are a core part of proactive policing. Those need to be treated separately.
Suggested fix: Make it clear the bill targets revenue-driven citation mandates only. Remove arrests from that section entirely. - Let police supervisors do their jobs
Supervisors need to assess performance. That’s how they make sure officers are doing the work communities expect. But under this bill, even basic oversight could be seen as setting a “quota.”
Suggested fix: Allow supervisors to use arrest and performance data to manage employees — as long as it’s not tied to revenue. - Prevent false or malicious complaints
The bill currently allows anonymous complaints to be sent to the Attorney General without requiring any proof. That opens the door to political games or personal vendettas — not real accountability.
Suggested fix: Add a requirement for clear and convincing evidence before a formal investigation can be launched. - Protect police leaders from political interference
Most police executives serve at-will. That means they can be fired for pushing back against unethical or politically motivated demands. If we want police to follow best practices, we need to protect them when they do.
Suggested fix: Give police executives the ability to stand up for proper policing without risking their careers.
We believe these changes will help the bill stay true to its purpose — banning unethical quotas — without creating dangerous side effects. Because the last thing Ohio needs is a law that makes our streets less safe.
Let’s Get This Right
No one is defending the old way of doing things — where ticket numbers padded budgets and community trust took a hit. Those days should be behind us.
But we can’t fix that problem by creating a new one.
Senate Bill 114, as written, risks turning good intentions into bad policy. It confuses unethical ticket quotas with the necessary oversight that keeps law enforcement accountable and effective. And in a state where violent crime is rising, and repeat offenders cycle through the system, the last thing we should be doing is tying the hands of the people working to stop it.
Ohio needs more than a feel-good fix. It needs real reform that protects the public — not just the politics.
We believe in fair enforcement. We believe in constitutional policing. We believe in building trust between communities and law enforcement — and we’ve spent the past year listening to what that trust should look like.
What we’ve heard is simple: people want safe neighborhoods and fair treatment. They want balance, not extremes.
With just a few common-sense amendments, SB 114 can become a bill that truly reflects those values.
Reach out to your state representative or senator and urge them to amend or oppose this bill in its current form. Ohioans deserve ethical policing that does not come at the expense of public safety—anything less risks becoming just another step toward depolicing.
Let’s fix the language. Let’s protect the intent. And let’s make sure Ohio doesn’t trade one problem for another.
