State v. McBride
2015 Ohio 5184
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- McBride was found in a car with a 14-year-old; police searched the vehicle with consent, found used/unused condoms, seized and impounded the car.
- McBride was indicted on multiple counts, pled guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material; other counts dismissed.
- At sentencing the State did not oppose return of McBride’s car and the court entered an order returning the vehicle (the State requested only that McBride’s phone be wiped before return).
- When McBride attempted to retrieve the car from the tow/storage company (Army’s Auto), the company demanded payment of storage/tow fees before release.
- McBride moved to compel return of the vehicle without requiring payment of storage fees; the trial court denied the motion, reasoning the car was a “key instrumentality” and McBride must pay storage costs.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding the trial court lacked authority to impose post‑sentence storage fees where no forfeiture proceedings occurred and the State had not conditioned the vehicle’s return on fee payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order McBride to pay tow/storage fees for a vehicle held as evidence though no forfeiture was sought | The State argued that R.C. 2981.11 (safekeeping of property) and precedents allow a court discretion to assign storage fees and thus the defendant can be required to pay | McBride argued the State never requested he pay fees before the vehicle was ordered returned; no forfeiture was filed; the court lacked authority to impose storage fees post‑sentence | Reversed: trial court erred. Where no forfeiture proceedings occurred, the State did not request fees before the unconditional return order, and the vehicle was not forfeited, the court could not require McBride to pay storage fees post‑sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- No key authorities with official reporter citations were relied on by the court in support of its legal rule in this opinion. The opinion discusses several Ohio appellate decisions and Ohio cases by Ohio citation (e.g., Grigsby, Thomas, Pitts, Christy, McMeen), but none are cited here with an official reporter citation in the opinion.