State v. Grace, 2023 Ohio 165

Dec. 13, 2020 traffic stop: Toledo police seized $21,456 in cash and two iPhones from Nickolas Grace; appellant was charged with a state drug trafficking felony.
State dismissed the charge (nolle prosequi) on Jan. 5, 2021; Grace moved to recover the seized property.
Toledo Police Sergeant Kevin Korsog (also a member of a federal task force) took custody, then the same morning transferred the cash to federal Border Patrol/Homeland Security for a bulk-cash investigation.
No federal criminal charge or federal forfeiture proceeding was ever initiated against Grace; the State presented no federal testimony showing an ongoing investigatory need for the cash.
Trial court denied Grace’s motion, concluding transfer to the federal government was proper and that Grace’s remedy lay in federal court.
The Sixth District reversed: it found the cash was initially seized by the City, the State had provisional title but no continuing need to hold the cash, R.C. 2981.14(B) did not authorize absolution of responsibility by transfer for investigation, and ordered return of the $21,456 “at the earliest possible time.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grace is entitled to return of seized cash under R.C. 2981.11 when the State no longer needs it	Grace: Money belongs to him; State no longer needs it; statute requires return	State: Money now with federal government; remedy must be pursued in federal court	Court: State initially seized and has not shown a continuing lawful need; must return the cash
Whether transfer to federal authorities violated R.C. 2981.14(B)	Grace: Transfer to feds improperly evades statutory limits on transfers for forfeiture	State: Transfer was for investigation (not federal forfeiture), so 2981.14(B) does not apply	Court: 2981.14(B) inapplicable because transfer was for investigation, but transfer does not absolve State of custody obligations
Whether state court lacked jurisdiction because remedy is in federal court	Grace: State retained provisional title and duty to return; state court may order return	State: Property is in federal hands; federal proceedings/control, so federal courts are proper forum	Court: Distinguished cases where federal forfeiture was pending; here no federal forfeiture or prosecution exists, so state remedy is appropriate

State v. Bolton, 97 N.E.3d 37 (Ohio 2017) (explains that the state acquires provisional title to property subject to forfeiture upon commission of the offense, subject to third-party claims and final adjudication)