Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2921
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52 (2026)

Using sham legal process

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Lawfully issued" means adopted, issued, or rendered in accordance with the United States constitution, the constitution of a state, and the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and ordinances of the United States, a state, and the political subdivisions of a state.

(2) "State" means a state of the United States, including without limitation, the state legislature, the highest court of the state that has statewide jurisdiction, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities of the state. "State" does not include the political subdivisions of the state.

(3) "Political subdivisions" means municipal corporations, townships, counties, school districts, and all other bodies corporate and politic that are organized under state law and are responsible for governmental activities only in geographical areas smaller than that of a state.

(4) "Sham legal process" means an instrument that meets all of the following conditions:

(a) It is not lawfully issued.

(b) It purports to do any of the following:

(i) To be a summons, subpoena, judgment, or order of a court, a law enforcement officer, or a legislative, executive, or administrative body.

(ii) To assert jurisdiction over or determine the legal or equitable status, rights, duties, powers, or privileges of any person or property.

(iii) To require or authorize the search, seizure, indictment, arrest, trial, or sentencing of any person or property.

(c) It is designed to make another person believe that it is lawfully issued.

(B) No person shall, knowing the sham legal process to be sham legal process, do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly issue, display, deliver, distribute, or otherwise use sham legal process;

(2) Knowingly use sham legal process to arrest, detain, search, or seize any person or the property of another person;

(3) Knowingly commit or facilitate the commission of an offense, using sham legal process;

(4) Knowingly commit a felony by using sham legal process.

(C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (B)(1) or (2) of this section that the use of sham legal process was for a lawful purpose.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using sham legal process. A violation of division (B)(1) of this section is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. A violation of division (B)(2) or (3) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that, if the purpose of a violation of division (B)(3) of this section is to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony, a violation of division (B)(3) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree. A violation of division (B)(4) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

(E) A person who violates this section is liable in a civil action to any person harmed by the violation for injury, death, or loss to person or property incurred as a result of the commission of the offense and for reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other expenses incurred as a result of prosecuting the civil action commenced under this division. A civil action under this division is not the exclusive remedy of a person who incurs injury, death, or loss to person or property as a result of a violation of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Brenda Bickerstaff v. Vincent Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brenda Bickerstaff v. Vincent Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Bickerstaffs cause of action is thus properly characterized as a claim under Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52, which prohibits using a sham legal process to “commit or facilitate the commission of an offense.”
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 4871 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× “Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by R.C. 2921.52 and maintaining personal information in appellant's inmate file knowing it to be inaccurate, as prohibited by R.”
State v. Roten, 776 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “05 (retaliation), and R.C. 2921.52 (using sham legal process) are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
Black v. Hicks, 2018 Ohio 2289 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Chief Ralph Spotts, the city of East Cleveland, and John Does 1-10 (collectively "appellants"), bring the instant appeal challenging the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Arnold Black ("Black"), on Black's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process,…”
Mobley v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 2021 Ohio 391 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “20AP-292 of criminal statutes, including their claim for use of a sham legal process under R.C. 2921.52, it lacked jurisdiction to consider them.”
Argote-Romero v. LAZ Parking LTD., L.L.C., 2025 Ohio 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Using Sham Legal Process (Count Nine) {¶ 50} In Count Nine of the appellant’s complaint, she alleges that the appellees engaged in a sham legal process in violation of R.C. 2921.52. The appellant contends that the appellees violated the statute by designing their parking tickets…”
State v. Anthony, 2017 Ohio 2756 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Assignment of Error Four [Anthony] was deprived of due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution by way of sham legal process in violation of [R.C.…”
Disciplinary Couns. v. Bukstein, 2014 Ohio 1884 (Ohio 2014). “{¶ 15} Attached to that motion was a letter on Bukstein’s letterhead and signed by Bukstein making the same argument and further alleging that Polen’s ex-husband obtained custody of the child by fraud and a sham legal process, in violation of R.C. 2921.52 and Polen’s…”
State v. Wilson, 2019 Ohio 150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “{¶4} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of using a sham legal process, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.52(B)(4). The remaining charges were nolled.”
Brock v. Niemeyer, 2011 Ohio 4704 (Ohio 2011). “Brock’s complaint alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to R.C. 2921.52(E). Brock’s complaint invoked neither the original nor the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals.”
Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Div., 58 F. Supp. 3d 842 (N.D. Ohio 2014). “In his opposition brief, Northrup argues the Defendants violated Ohio Revised Code § 2921.52, which criminalizes a “sham legal process,” and asserts a claim against Officer Bright for “vindictive enforcement.”
Stewart v. Kahn (N.D. Ohio 2021). · cites it 11× “45; (2) sham legal process in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52; and (3) due process violation.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(A)(4) — 2 cases
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 4871 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by R.C. 2921.52 and maintaining personal information in appellant's inmate file knowing it to be inaccurate, as prohibited by R.”
State v. Roten, 776 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “05 (retaliation), and R.C. 2921.52 (using sham legal process) are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(A)(4)(C) — 1 case
State v. Harris, 2011 Ohio 1626 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(A)(4)(a) — 2 cases
Argote-Romero v. LAZ Parking LTD., L.L.C., 2025 Ohio 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “Using Sham Legal Process (Count Nine) {¶ 50} In Count Nine of the appellant’s complaint, she alleges that the appellees engaged in a sham legal process in violation of R.C. 2921.52. The appellant contends that the appellees violated the statute by designing their parking tickets…”
Stewart v. Kahn (N.D. Ohio 2021). “45; (2) sham legal process in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52; and (3) due process violation.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(B) — 5 cases
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 4871 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by R.C. 2921.52 and maintaining personal information in appellant's inmate file knowing it to be inaccurate, as prohibited by R.”
State v. Roten, 776 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “05 (retaliation), and R.C. 2921.52 (using sham legal process) are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
Stewart v. Kahn (N.D. Ohio 2021). “45; (2) sham legal process in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52; and (3) due process violation.”
Seymour v. Miller (S.D. Ohio 2022).
State v. Washington, 2024 Ohio 1942 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(B)(2) — 1 case
Kanu v. City Of Cincinnati (S.D. Ohio 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(B)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Wilson, 2019 Ohio 150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶4} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of using a sham legal process, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.52(B)(4). The remaining charges were nolled.”
State v. Coleman, 2018 Ohio 4210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(D) — 1 case
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 4871 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by R.C. 2921.52 and maintaining personal information in appellant's inmate file knowing it to be inaccurate, as prohibited by R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52(E) — 3 cases
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 4871 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by R.C. 2921.52 and maintaining personal information in appellant's inmate file knowing it to be inaccurate, as prohibited by R.”
Brock v. Niemeyer, 2011 Ohio 4704 (Ohio 2011). “Brock’s complaint alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to R.C. 2921.52(E). Brock’s complaint invoked neither the original nor the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals.”
Stewart v. Kahn (N.D. Ohio 2021). “45; (2) sham legal process in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.52; and (3) due process violation.”
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.