Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2981 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02 (2026)

Property subject to forfeiture

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 96 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the state or a political subdivision under either the criminal or delinquency process in section 2981.04 of the Revised Code or the civil process in section 2981.05 of the Revised Code:

(a) Contraband involved in an offense;

(b) Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense;

(c) An instrumentality that is used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of any of the following offenses when the use or intended use, consistent with division (B) of this section, is sufficient to warrant forfeiture under this chapter:

(i) A felony;

(ii) A misdemeanor, when forfeiture is specifically authorized by a section of the Revised Code or by a municipal ordinance that creates the offense or sets forth its penalties;

(iii) An attempt to commit, complicity in committing, or a conspiracy to commit an offense of the type described in divisions (A)(3)(a) and (b) of this section.

(2) In determining whether an alleged instrumentality was used in or was intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of an offense or an attempt, complicity, or conspiracy to commit an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture, the trier of fact shall consider the following factors the trier of fact determines are relevant:

(a) Whether the offense could not have been committed or attempted but for the presence of the instrumentality;

(b) Whether the primary purpose in using the instrumentality was to commit or attempt to commit the offense;

(c) The extent to which the instrumentality furthered the commission of, or attempt to commit, the offense.

(B) The property described in division (H)(4) of section 2917.211 of the Revised Code is subject to forfeiture under the criminal or delinquency process in section 2981.04 of the Revised Code, if the forfeiture is ordered by the court imposing sentence or an order of disposition.

(C) This chapter does not apply to or limit forfeitures under Title XLV of the Revised Code, including forfeitures relating to section 2903.06 or 2903.08 of the Revised Code.

Last updated July 21, 2025 at 11:52 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 157 cases (65 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 37× “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Brimacombe, 960 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “The state, in response, quotes only a portion of R.C. 2981.02, defining “instrumentality,” and then summarily concludes that “the weapons should be destroyed pursuant to a legal order made by the trial court.”
State v. Harris, 2012 Ohio 1908 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 6× “04(B) requires that the state or political subdivision prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that property is subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02. To obtain a conviction, in contrast, the state must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Glanton, 2020 Ohio 834 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “{¶ 3} On appeal, Glanton argues that the forfeiture provision set forth in R.C. 2981.02 (“Property subject to forfeiture”) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.”
State v. Woods, 2013 Ohio 1136 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “The indictment contained a forfeiture specification titled in the caption as “Monies & Motor Vehicle, O.R.C. 2981.02 and 2941.1417” (emphasis added) and stated the following: The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the said Defendant owned or possessed property, to-wit: a…”
State v. Compton, 2021 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “Compton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
In re $75,000.00 U.S. Currency, 2017 Ohio 9158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “{¶ 52} "Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense" and instrumentalities "used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of" a felony are subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Armstead, 2021 Ohio 4000 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “2907.08(E)(1)(3). R.C. 2907.08 does not specifically authorize forfeiture for violations under that section.”
State v. Forney, 2013 Ohio 3458 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “If the state or political subdivision proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is in whole or part subject to forfeiture under section 2981.02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.”
State v. West, 2013 Ohio 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
Erie Cty. Sheriff's Off. v. Lacy, 2015 Ohio 72 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “” R.C. 2981.02 permits forfeiture of property that is: (1) Contraband involved in an offense; (2) Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense; (3) An instrumentality that is used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of any of the…”
Show all 157 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A) — 19 cases
State v. Glanton, 2020 Ohio 834 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 3} On appeal, Glanton argues that the forfeiture provision set forth in R.C. 2981.02 (“Property subject to forfeiture”) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.”
State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Armstead, 2021 Ohio 4000 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “2907.08(E)(1)(3). R.C. 2907.08 does not specifically authorize forfeiture for violations under that section.”
State v. McCall, 2022 Ohio 843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Compton, 2021 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Compton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1) — 16 cases
State v. Ramey, 2020 Ohio 6733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Hunter, 2018 Ohio 4249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Grace, 2023 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Recinos, 2014 Ohio 3021 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Syed, 2018 Ohio 1438 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Corbett, 2023 Ohio 556 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Ball, 2023 Ohio 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(B) — 5 cases
State v. Corbett, 2023 Ohio 556 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Stephens, 2022 Ohio 2944 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Turner, 2023 Ohio 441 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Crane, 2023 Ohio 188 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. James, 2024 Ohio 6035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(C) — 7 cases
State v. Jenkins, 2024 Ohio 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Parker, 2023 Ohio 2127 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Windland, 2024 Ohio 1760 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Turner, 2023 Ohio 441 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Matheny, 2022 Ohio 3447 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Forney, 2013 Ohio 3458 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “If the state or political subdivision proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is in whole or part subject to forfeiture under section 2981.02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.”
State v. Stubbs, 2024 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Akron v. Stone, 2025 Ohio 1996 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Baker, 2024 Ohio 5070 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Reedy, 2026 Ohio 1119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(b) — 9 cases
State v. McCorkle, 2021 Ohio 2604 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2020 Ohio 3231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Harvey, 2024 Ohio 702 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Gibson, 2025 Ohio 5497 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Allen, 2025 Ohio 5785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Hampton, 2021 Ohio 1873 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(c)(i) — 4 cases
State v. Armstead, 2021 Ohio 4000 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “2907.08(E)(1)(3). R.C. 2907.08 does not specifically authorize forfeiture for violations under that section.”
State v. Kendall, 2021 Ohio 1551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Howze, 2025 Ohio 2630 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Stuart, 2025 Ohio 2420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(c)(ii) — 5 cases
State v. Compton, 2021 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Compton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Jones, 2025 Ohio 3011 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Morgan, 2024 Ohio 2875 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Mitchell, 2026 Ohio 588 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(1)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(2) — 28 cases
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Baas, 2014 Ohio 1191 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Bustamante, 2013 Ohio 4975 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Gales, 2022 Ohio 776 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Kendall, 2021 Ohio 1551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Snowden, 2024 Ohio 5649 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Spaid, 2024 Ohio 2771 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(3) — 14 cases
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Haller, 2012 Ohio 5233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. West, 2013 Ohio 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
State v. Bracy, 2016 Ohio 7536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. McMeen, 2014 Ohio 5482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(3)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Recinos, 2014 Ohio 3021 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
In re Forfeiture of Prop. of Rhodes, 2013 Ohio 3046 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Stults, 2011 Ohio 4328 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. King, 2011 Ohio 3323 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Ligas, 2014 Ohio 5785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. McMeen, 2014 Ohio 5482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Harris, 2014 Ohio 2415 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(3)(c) — 2 cases
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(A)(l)(B) — 1 case
State v. Priest, 2023 Ohio 3769 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(B) — 9 cases
State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Adams, 2013 Ohio 1603 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. $5,839 in U.S. Currency, 2018 Ohio 624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Recinos, 2014 Ohio 3021 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(B)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Trivette, 2011 Ohio 4297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Brimacombe, 960 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “The state, in response, quotes only a portion of R.C. 2981.02, defining “instrumentality,” and then summarily concludes that “the weapons should be destroyed pursuant to a legal order made by the trial court.”
State v. West, 2013 Ohio 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
State v. Franklin, 2014 Ohio 1422 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Saenz, 2014 Ohio 1408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Ligas, 2014 Ohio 5785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(B)(3) — 2 cases
Beachwood v. Reed, 2015 Ohio 4758 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Ligas, 2014 Ohio 5785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.02(C) — 1 case
State v. Jozwiak, 2020 Ohio 3694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
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.