Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Right, as long as the individual is not a prohibited person then their property should be returned to them when the order expires. If a judgement is later put into effect after the order expires then the property can be collected again.

If as a result of the proceedings they become a prohibited person but the property was not involved in the crime then it should go to a chosen proxy to be sold/disposed of. If they were a prohibited person before the fact then I can see the LEO being allowed to dispose of said property.

JediSkipdogg wrote:

WY_Not wrote:Separate issue I suppose... But, if the protection order ends then unless the owner is a prohibited person then they shouldn't have to ask for their property back, shouldn't have to beg the court to tell the LEOs to return what is theirs. That should be a given; anything else is just plain thievery.

I can unfortunately see it both ways. Keep in mind there are many types of protection orders. The issue comes in why it was issued and does a subsequent court case that was tied along with it overrule the reason it was issued. All protection orders have time limits on them and they do expire. The ones that "stick" generally expire and are then replaced with a judgement, something law enforcement may not have easy access to.

WY_Not wrote:Right, as long as the individual is not a prohibited person then their property should be returned to them when the order expires. If a judgement is later put into effect after the order expires then the property can be collected again.

If as a result of the proceedings they become a prohibited person but the property was not involved in the crime then it should go to a chosen proxy to be sold/disposed of. If they were a prohibited person before the fact then I can see the LEO being allowed to dispose of said property.

Good suggestion for the legislature to do something about that.