State v. Moss, 2014 Ohio 5411

Timothy A. Moss pleaded guilty to heroin trafficking (with forfeiture and school-proximity specifications) and having weapons under disability after police searched his home.
Officers recovered scales, packaging materials, a notebook with names/amounts, multiple firearms, marijuana, prescription pills, needles, over eight grams of heroin, and $43,100 in cash.
Some currency included $120 of marked buy money used in a controlled heroin purchase; other cash was hidden in envelopes, insulation, a coffee can, and joists near drugs.
The basement was padlocked with a combination known only to Moss; the money and drugs were found in close proximity and in what officers described as a workstation.
The trial court ordered forfeiture of the entire $43,100; Moss appealed, arguing the forfeiture was contrary to Ohio law and federal/state constitutions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forfeiture may reach cash that is proceeds of any criminal offense (not just the charged offense) and whether conviction on that separate offense is required	State: money is subject to forfeiture if, by a preponderance of the evidence, it was used in or constitutes proceeds of the commission of an offense; need not be proceeds of the indicted charge	Moss: forfeiture should be limited to proceeds of the indicted offense (or require conviction) and his constitutional rights bar forfeiture here	Court: Affirmed forfeiture. State met preponderance standard that the cash was proceeds/used in commission of an offense; forfeiture may cover proceeds of "an" offense and a separate conviction is not required

State v. Golston, 66 Ohio App.3d 423 (1990) (recognizes lawful cash possession and explains the State must show, by circumstances, cash was used in or constituted proceeds of an offense to support forfeiture)
Chagrin Falls v. Loveman, 34 Ohio App.3d 212 (1986) (same principle that possession of cash is not inherently illegal)