Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2923 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24 (2026)

Possessing criminal tools

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 1, 1996
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 2 - 121st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.

(B) Each of the following constitutes prima-facie evidence of criminal purpose:

(1) Possession or control of any dangerous ordnance, or the materials or parts for making dangerous ordnance, in the absence of circumstances indicating the dangerous ordnance, materials, or parts are intended for legitimate use;

(2) Possession or control of any substance, device, instrument, or article designed or specially adapted for criminal use;

(3) Possession or control of any substance, device, instrument, or article commonly used for criminal purposes, under circumstances indicating the item is intended for criminal use.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing criminal tools. Except as otherwise provided in this division, possessing criminal tools is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the circumstances indicate that the substance, device, instrument, or article involved in the offense was intended for use in the commission of a felony, possessing criminal tools is a felony of the fifth degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 855 cases (217 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 56× “With regard to the state’s assertion that the intent to use an item criminally under R.C. 2923.24 can arise from an intended violation of municipal law, the state did not raise this argument in the courts below.”
State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 48× “The issue presented by this case is whether R.C. 2923.24 is constitutional on its face.”
State v. Chandler, 560 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 21× “51 (possession for sale of PBZ); and one count of violation of R.C. 2923.24 (possession of criminal tools).”
State v. Griffin, 2013 Ohio 2230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 32× “14 for a fourth degree misdemeanor, rather than R.C. 2923.24, which elevates the crime to a fifth degree felony if the article is intended for use in the commission of a felony.”
State v. Volpe, 527 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 11× “2d 57 , in which we held that “R.C. 2923.24, prohibiting the possession of criminal tools, is constitutional on its face.”
State v. Kobi, 701 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “Appellant also contends that the state failed to show that the books seized constituted criminal tools under R.C. 2923.24, which states: “(A) No person shall possess or have under the person’s control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it…”
State v. Carpenter, 2019 Ohio 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “" {¶17} Carpenter was also convicted of possessing-criminal-tools, which is codified under R.C. 2923.24 and provides, in relevant part, "No person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.”
State v. Mannarino, 2013 Ohio 1795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “323(A)(1); and one count of possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). All counts carried a forfeiture specification.”
State v. Haberek, 546 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “41, and possession of criminal tools, R.C. 2923.24. Defendants elected to waive a jury.”
State v. Powell, 621 N.E.2d 1328 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “03(A)(2), possession of criminal tools (money, gun and pager) in violation of R.C. 2923.24, and carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.”
State v. Nievas, 700 N.E.2d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “13, and one count of possessing criminal tools (pagers, money and a 1975 Toyota), in violation of R.C. 2923.24. Counts one and two contained specifications as to appellant’s prior conviction of attempted drug trafficking, which enhanced the degree of appellant’s drug trafficking…”
State v. McShan, 603 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “03) and one count of possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24). In a timely appeal with one assignment of error, McShan asserts the trial court impermissibly denied his Crim.”
Show all 855 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(A) — 545 cases
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010). “With regard to the state’s assertion that the intent to use an item criminally under R.C. 2923.24 can arise from an intended violation of municipal law, the state did not raise this argument in the courts below.”
State v. Mannarino, 2013 Ohio 1795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “323(A)(1); and one count of possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). All counts carried a forfeiture specification.”
State v. Carpenter, 2019 Ohio 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “" {¶17} Carpenter was also convicted of possessing-criminal-tools, which is codified under R.C. 2923.24 and provides, in relevant part, "No person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.”
State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426 (Ohio 2009).
Stewart v. Vivian (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7526 (Ohio 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Banks, 2013 Ohio 255 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Goble, 2014 Ohio 3967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(A)(B)(3) — 1 case
State v. VanValkenburg, 2012 Ohio 1213 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(A)(C) — 8 cases
State v. Jones, 2019 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Jarrett, 2020 Ohio 393 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Johnson, 2016 Ohio 5160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. George, 2018 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Goetz, 2019 Ohio 5424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(B) — 7 cases
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010). “With regard to the state’s assertion that the intent to use an item criminally under R.C. 2923.24 can arise from an intended violation of municipal law, the state did not raise this argument in the courts below.”
State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987). “The issue presented by this case is whether R.C. 2923.24 is constitutional on its face.”
State v. Hicks, 929 N.E.2d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Farkas, 580 N.E.2d 1154 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Dorsey, 2012 Ohio 4043 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987). “The issue presented by this case is whether R.C. 2923.24 is constitutional on its face.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Hicks, 929 N.E.2d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(B)(3) — 10 cases
State v. Meddock, 2017 Ohio 4414 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. McShan, 603 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “03) and one count of possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24). In a timely appeal with one assignment of error, McShan asserts the trial court impermissibly denied his Crim.”
State v. Owens, 2018 Ohio 1334 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Hicks, 929 N.E.2d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Owens, 2011 Ohio 2503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(B)(l) — 1 case
State v. Hicks, 929 N.E.2d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.24(C) — 26 cases
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010). “With regard to the state’s assertion that the intent to use an item criminally under R.C. 2923.24 can arise from an intended violation of municipal law, the state did not raise this argument in the courts below.”
State v. Higgins, 2018 Ohio 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 4693 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Troisi, 901 N.E.2d 856 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Frambach, 612 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
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.