DocketNumber: Nos. 2005-L-058, 2005-L-059.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 2647
Judges: DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
Filed Date: 5/26/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
{¶ 2} On September 15, 2004, Willoughby Hills police stopped a 2005 Ford Taurus, traveling westbound on Interstate 90. The Taurus was operated by Toole, of Rochester, New York. Eric Maldonado, also of Rochester, was a passenger in the vehicle. The vehicle was registered to Budget Rent A Car and leased by "Mariano Merpeden." Police seized the vehicle and took it to the Willoughby Hills police station where it was searched pursuant to warrant.
{¶ 3} In the ensuring search, police found $7,960 on the person of Toole and $5,000 on the person of Maldonado. According to a Property/Evidence Inventory Sheet, police also found $55,300 in the trunk of the vehicle.1 The police also recovered clothing and other miscellaneous items from the vehicle. The police returned the clothing and other items to Toole and Maldonado on the same day as their seizure, September 15, 2004.
{¶ 4} At some point thereafter, Toole's attorney contacted the Willoughby Hills Police Department to demand the return of the $7,960 taken from Toole's person.
{¶ 5} On October 2 and 9, 2004, Willoughby Hills published the following notice in The News-Herald newspaper: "Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §
{¶ 6} On October 20, 2004, Willoughby Hills filed a motion in municipal court "for an order of disposal of evidence and or [sic] abandoned property held by the Willoughby Hills Police Department." Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Willoughby Hills Chief of Police, Christopher J. Collins. Collins stated the police department was in possession of "certain property/evidence that has been lost, abandoned, stolen, or lawfully seized and forfeited." The following items were identified by affidavit: "WHPD 04-019233 Maldonado $5,000.00 U.S. Currency" and "WHPD 040-19233 Unknown $42,200.00 U.S. Currency." Collins further stated that "a reasonable effort to locate persons entitled to lost, abandoned and stolen property * * * has failed to locate the owners of same."
{¶ 7} The municipal court granted Willoughby Hills' motion the same day.
{¶ 8} On November 1, 2004, Toole filed a Motion for Expedited Release of Seized Property, regarding the money seized on September 15, 2004.
{¶ 9} On December 14, 2004, Maldonado moved to intervene and asserted a claim for the $5,000 recovered from his person.
{¶ 10} On December 16, 2004, the municipal court set the matter for hearing on January 5, 2005, and ordered the parties to prepare a stipulation of agreed facts and to submit hearing briefs. Neither party complied with the court's order to prepare a stipulation of facts and to submit briefs.
{¶ 11} At the January 5, 2004 hearing, the parties outlined their positions before the court. Counsel for Toole argued that the court's October 20, 2004 order disposing of the money held by the Willoughby Hills police must be dismissed "for failure of the City to provide notice pursuant to ORC §
{¶ 12} The court rendered its judgment on March 24, 2005, without further hearing. The court held that R.C.
{¶ 13} Toole raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶ 14} "[1.] The trial court erred by failing to grant defense's motion to dismiss by ruling that the City of Willoughby Hills did not have to provide any service, whether personal or via certified mail.
{¶ 15} "[2.] The trial court erred by failing to grant defense's motion to dismiss by ruling the City of Willoughby Hills provided the proper published notice.
{¶ 16} "[3.] The trial court erred by failing to grant defense's motion to dismiss by ruling the City of Willoughby Hills made reasonably diligent inquiries into the ownership of the seized property."
{¶ 17} All three of Toole's assignments of error are premised on Willoughby Hill's failure to comply with the notice requirements in R.C.
{¶ 18} On its face, R.C.
{¶ 19} In the present case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Toole or Maldonado were charged or convicted of any activity that would render the money found in the trunk of the car "contraband." Although the money was seized pursuant to a search warrant for "any and all controlled substances * * * and/or contraband common used in the possession of narcotics," no controlled substances were found in the vehicle and no charges were brought based on the items found in the vehicle. State v.Jones, 8th Dist. No. 83852,
{¶ 20} Under R.C.
{¶ 21} "Although R.C.
{¶ 22} The issue before this court is whether Willoughby Hills' notice by publication of its intent to dispose of the $42,200 complied with the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 23} Willoughby Hills argues that the $42,200 recovered from the trunk of Toole's vehicle constitutes "unclaimed funds" and that, therefore, notice by publication was proper. Willoughby Hills notes that Toole was operating a rental vehicle which was leased in another person's name and which Toole had no authorization to be operating. There is no evidence in the record that Toole had any connection with the $42,200, unlike the other monies recovered by police from persons of Toole and Maldonado.
{¶ 24} Willoughby Hills also notes that Toole never came forward to claim the money. On the day of the seizure, Willoughby Hills police had Toole sign two forms. The first was a Property/Evidence Inventory Sheet listing the $7,960 taken from Toole's person. The second was a Property/Evidence Release Form listing Toole's personal items, such as his wallet, cellular phones, jewelry and clothes. Toole testified by deposition that he voluntarily signed both forms. Toole also testified that he intentionally, on advice of counsel, remained quiet about the $42,200 in which he now claims an interest. According to Toole, a Willoughby Hills police officer went over the Property/Evidence Release Form with him prior to his signing it and "asked [him] to identify in detail all of [his] items." Willoughby Hills cites to authority that when a person denies ownership of property, the law enforcement agency is not required to notify them of its intent to dispose of the property. See State v. Davidson (Jan. 11, 1985), 6th Dist. No. WD-84-58, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 5395, at *3-*4; see, also, Eastlake v. Lorenzo (11th Dist. 1992),
{¶ 25} In light of Toole's own conduct in failing to assert any claim or interest in the money when given the opportunity, Willoughby Hills was not required to notify him of its intention to dispose of the money. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 26} For the foregoing reasons, Toole's assignments of error are without merit. The decision of the Willoughby Municipal Court, overruling Toole's motion to dismiss its disposition of $42,200 in cash held by the Willoughby Hills Police Department, is affirmed.
William M. O'Neill, J., concurs, Donald R. Ford, P.J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion.