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

Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11 (2026)

Care of property in law enforcement custody

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 331 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) Any property that has been lost, abandoned, stolen, seized pursuant to a search warrant, or otherwise lawfully seized or forfeited and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall be kept safely by the agency, pending the time it no longer is needed as evidence or for another lawful purpose, and shall be disposed of pursuant to sections 2981.12 and 2981.13 of the Revised Code.

(2) This chapter does not apply to the custody and disposal of any of the following:

(a) Vehicles subject to forfeiture under Title XLV of the Revised Code, except as provided in division (A)(6) of section 2981.12 of the Revised Code;

(b) Abandoned junk motor vehicles or other property of negligible value;

(c) Property held by a department of rehabilitation and correction institution that is unclaimed, that does not have an identified owner, that the owner agrees to dispose of, or that is identified by the department as having little value;

(d) Animals taken, and devices used in unlawfully taking animals, under section 1531.20 of the Revised Code;

(e) Controlled substances sold by a peace officer in the performance of the officer's official duties under section 3719.141 of the Revised Code;

(f) Property recovered by a township law enforcement agency under sections 505.105 to 505.109 of the Revised Code;

(g) Property held and disposed of under an ordinance of the municipal corporation or under sections 737.29 to 737.33 of the Revised Code, except that a municipal corporation that has received notice of a citizens' reward program as provided in division (F) of section 2981.12 of the Revised Code and disposes of property under an ordinance shall pay twenty-five per cent of any moneys acquired from any sale or auction to the citizens' reward program.

(B)(1) Each law enforcement agency that has custody of any property that is subject to this section shall adopt and comply with a written internal control policy that does all of the following:

(a) Provides for keeping detailed records as to the amount of property acquired by the agency and the date property was acquired;

(b) Provides for keeping detailed records of the disposition of the property, which shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following:

(i) The manner in which it was disposed, the date of disposition, detailed financial records concerning any property sold, and the name of any person who received the property. The record shall not identify or enable identification of the individual officer who seized any item of property.

(ii) An itemized list of the specific expenditures made with amounts that are gained from the sale of the property and that are retained by the agency, including the specific amount expended on each expenditure, except that the policy shall not provide for or permit the identification of any specific expenditure that is made in an ongoing investigation.

(c) Complies with section 2981.13 of the Revised Code if the agency has a law enforcement trust fund or similar fund created under that section.

(2) The records kept under the internal control policy shall be open to public inspection during the agency's regular business hours. The policy adopted under this section is a public record open for inspection under section 149.43 of the Revised Code.

(C) A law enforcement agency with custody of property to be disposed of under section 2981.12 or 2981.13 of the Revised Code shall make a reasonable effort to locate persons entitled to possession of the property, to notify them of when and where it may be claimed, and to return the property to them at the earliest possible time. In the absence of evidence identifying persons entitled to possession, it is sufficient notice to advertise using at least one of the following methods:

(1) In the print or digital edition of a newspaper of general circulation in the county;

(2) On the official public notice web site established under section 125.182 of the Revised Code;

(3) On the web site and social media account of the county.

The notices shall briefly describe the nature of the property in custody and inviting persons to view and establish their right to it.

(D) As used in sections 2981.11 to 2981.13 of the Revised Code:

(1) "Citizens' reward program" has the same meaning as in section 9.92 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Law enforcement agency" includes correctional institutions.

(3) "Township law enforcement agency" means an organized police department of a township, a township police district, a joint police district, or the office of a township constable.

Last updated January 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
State v. Grace, 2023 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “{¶ 4} Thereafter, on June 23, 2021, appellant filed the subject Motion to Return Seized Property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, seeking to recover the $21,456.”
State v. Banks-Harvey, 96 N.E.3d 262 (Ohio 2018). “Indeed, R.C. 2981.11 requires law-enforcement agencies to keep safe any lawfully seized property that comes into their custody.”
State v. Thompson, 2018 Ohio 4690 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “Under these circumstances, we find the trial court’s decision not to release the cell phones was proper under R.C. 2981.11(A) and not an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Martre, 2022 Ohio 639 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “03(A)(4), or the return of lawfully seized property under R.C. 2981.11(A)(1). {¶ 25} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Lavette, 2019 Ohio 145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “{¶66} We recognize there is precedent establishing that a trial court has discretion to order the police department to pay storage fees pursuant to R.C. 2981.11 when the state requested forfeiture of a vehicle that belongs to an innocent third-party who was not the criminal…”
State v. Metz, 2019 Ohio 3370 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Regardless of its evidentiary weight, Metz’s cell phone is a piece of evidence that could be used during a potential retrial and may be held under R.C. 2981.11(A). As a result of Metz’s pending appeal, and those of his codefendants, the overriding concern is that the cell phone…”
State v. Freeman, 2022 Ohio 2364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2981.11(A). Under that statutory scheme, a law enforcement agency may only dispose of unclaimed or forfeited property.”
Reid v. Cleveland Police Dept. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7527 (Ohio 2017). “But it held that vacating his sentence was not the remedy: If the police department did in fact scrap the vehicle without order of the court, the department violated R.C. 2981.11, which governs the safekeeping of property in custody of the police.”
State v. Brown, 2022 Ohio 4314 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “{¶ 19} R.C. 2981.11 addresses a law enforcement agency’s duty to return property in its custody to persons entitled to possession of the property.”
State v. Patton, 2014 Ohio 3000 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{¶ 6} Under R.C. 2981.11(A)(1), “[a]ny property that has been * * * seized pursuant to a search warrant, or otherwise lawfully seized * * * and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall be kept safely by the agency, pending the time it no longer is needed as…”
State ex rel. Gains v. Go Go Girls Cabaret, Inc., 932 N.E.2d 353 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “{¶ 11} The state alternatively stated that a criminal investigation was ongoing and the computers were needed as evidence under R.C. 2981.11. The state noted that BCI’s extraction was not yet complete and that law-enforcement officers would continue the criminal investigation…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11(A) — 6 cases
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
State v. Thompson, 2018 Ohio 4690 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Under these circumstances, we find the trial court’s decision not to release the cell phones was proper under R.C. 2981.11(A) and not an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Freeman, 2022 Ohio 2364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 2981.11(A). Under that statutory scheme, a law enforcement agency may only dispose of unclaimed or forfeited property.”
In re Seizure of Approximately $20,000 U.S. Currency, 2017 Ohio 1452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Metz, 2019 Ohio 3370 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Regardless of its evidentiary weight, Metz’s cell phone is a piece of evidence that could be used during a potential retrial and may be held under R.C. 2981.11(A). As a result of Metz’s pending appeal, and those of his codefendants, the overriding concern is that the cell phone…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11(A)(1) — 25 cases
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
State v. Grace, 2023 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 4} Thereafter, on June 23, 2021, appellant filed the subject Motion to Return Seized Property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, seeking to recover the $21,456.”
State v. Thompson, 2018 Ohio 4690 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Under these circumstances, we find the trial court’s decision not to release the cell phones was proper under R.C. 2981.11(A) and not an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Martre, 2022 Ohio 639 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “03(A)(4), or the return of lawfully seized property under R.C. 2981.11(A)(1). {¶ 25} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Lavette, 2019 Ohio 145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶66} We recognize there is precedent establishing that a trial court has discretion to order the police department to pay storage fees pursuant to R.C. 2981.11 when the state requested forfeiture of a vehicle that belongs to an innocent third-party who was not the criminal…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11(B) — 1 case
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11(C) — 5 cases
State v. Holloway, 2021 Ohio 1843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 34} We find that despite the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over appellee’s motion for return of seized property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, the doctrine of res judicata precluded appellant and appellee from relitigating the issue of the disposal (or return) of…”
State v. Grace, 2023 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 4} Thereafter, on June 23, 2021, appellant filed the subject Motion to Return Seized Property pursuant to R.C. 2981.11, seeking to recover the $21,456.”
State v. Freeman, 2022 Ohio 2364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 2981.11(A). Under that statutory scheme, a law enforcement agency may only dispose of unclaimed or forfeited property.”
In re $770 in US Currency, $1,289.04 in US Currency, Safe Containing Approximately $12,500 in US Currency, $1,236 in US Currency, $177 in US Currency, 2016 Ohio 4872 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Cassi, 2025 Ohio 5618 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
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.