2021 Ohio 3462
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On Jan. 30, 2020, police found Anthony Tarulli holding an AR-15 while he admitted consuming alcohol; officers seized that rifle plus three other firearms from his apartment.
- Tarulli was charged with using a weapon while intoxicated (misdemeanor); he was later admitted into the court’s Selective Intervention Program (SIP), completed it, the charge was nolled, and his record sealed.
- Tarulli moved for return of all four firearms; the city initially failed to file a timely written response but later objected and opposed return of the AR-15.
- The municipal court ordered three apartment firearms returned but denied return/ordered forfeiture of the AR-15, citing Tarulli’s intoxicated handling and public-safety concerns.
- Tarulli appealed; the Eighth District considered whether statutory forfeiture requirements were satisfied before depriving him of the AR-15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied return/forfeited the AR-15 without statutory forfeiture procedure | City argued the court could deny return given danger posed and the criminal matter’s disposition (implying lack of jurisdiction/mootness) | Tarulli argued the city never followed R.C. Chapter 2981 forfeiture procedures (no forfeiture specification or notice); SIP did not include forfeiture terms | Court held trial court erred: city failed to meet statutory forfeiture requirements (no notice/specification); denial reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fort, 17 N.E.3d 1172 (8th Dist. 2014) (forfeiture disfavored; statutory definitions and standards for forfeiture)
- State v. Clark, 880 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (forfeiture statutes strictly construed against the state)
- In re $75,000.00 United States Currency (Katz), 101 N.E.3d 1209 (8th Dist. 2017) (reminder that forfeiture statutes be narrowly construed)
- State v. Golston, 584 N.E.2d 1336 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (statutory construction against forfeiture)
- State v. Lilliock, 434 N.E.2d 723 (Ohio 1982) (courts should avoid forfeiture when possible)
- State v. North, 980 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist. 2012) (property-holder must be given notice under R.C. Chapter 2981 or property cannot be retained)
- C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review standard – some competent, credible evidence supports trial court findings)