State v. North, 980 N.E.2d 566

Defendant-appellant North challenged the trial court’s ruling denying his motion for the return of property seized incident to arrest.
The relevant forfeiture statutes were replaced by R.C. Chapter 2981 effective July 1, 2007, and North’s case involved property seized before final disposition under the old regime.
The court never provided notice or a hearing on forfeiture, nor did it amend the indictment or pleadings to include a forfeiture specification.
No final forfeiture adjudication occurred; the state retained provisional title to the property.
The court should have applied Chapter 2981 procedures and extended filing periods or provided protections under civil forfeiture.
The appellate court reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Chapter 2981 and this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state failed to follow Chapter 2981 procedures.	North	North: no notice/hearing; improper retention	Yes; improper retention; remand for proper civil forfeiture process

State v. Coleman, 2009-Ohio-1611 (8th Dist. No. 91058 (2009)) (extends Chapter 2981 to pending cases)
State v. Clark, 2007-Ohio-6235 (3d Dist. (2007)) (early treatment of Chapter 2981 application)
State v. Lenard, 2012-Ohio-1636 (8th Dist. Nos. 96975 and 97570 (2012)) (extension of civil-forfeiture time upon good cause)
State v. Cruise, 2009-Ohio-6795 (9th Dist.) (guilty plea to forfeiture specification affects waiver)
State v. Lilliock, 1982-Ohio St.2d 23 (Ohio) (forfeiture strictly construed to protect private property)
In re $449 United States Currency, 2012-Ohio-1701 (1st Dist. No. C-110176 (2012)) (discusses balancing of forfeiture policy and private rights)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012-Ohio-1908) (postconviction forfeiture adjudication procedures)