Ohio Possession of Criminal Tools Lawyer
Accused of Possessing Criminal Tools?
A possession of criminal tools charge under Ohio Revised Code § 2923.24 is rarely about a “tool” in the ordinary sense. It is an intent-based offense. The State points to an object—sometimes an everyday object—and argues it was possessed for a criminal purpose.
That framing gives prosecutors room to overcharge, stack counts, and use the allegation to make another case feel more serious than it is.
If you are under investigation or have been charged with possessing criminal tools in Ohio, the central issue is not whether you owned an item; it is whether the government can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what you intended to do with it.
Why You Should Call Patituce & Associates
Serious criminal allegations require judgment, credibility, and the ability to litigate aggressively when the government’s story does not match the evidence.
Our clients choose us because we offer:
- One of only 8 board-certified criminal trial lawyers in Ohio
- Attorneys who have taken over 400 cases to trial
- A team of former felony-level prosecutors
- Over 70+ years of collective criminal defense experience
- No-cost, confidential consultations available 24/7
At Patituce & Associates, we defend clients across the state from eight local offices. Call now if you were arrested in Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, or anywhere else in Ohio.
Understanding Ohio’s Possessing Criminal Tools Law
O.R.C. 2923.24 makes it a crime to possess or control a “substance, device, instrument, or article” with the purpose of using it criminally.
This is why these cases often feel unfair. The State does not have to allege the object was illegal. It argues that the purpose was illegal.
A strong defense does not argue in generalities. It forces prosecutors to identify:
- What the alleged “tool” was;
- What crime the State claims it was meant to facilitate; and
- What evidence supports that claim beyond speculation.
Contact our defense attorneys today at (440) 771-1175 for a free consultation.
We understand that your specific situation requires individualized attention, and we are dedicated to providing just that.
No Case is Hopeless
We Don't Back Down. Ever.
Explore some of our recent wins.
-
Case Dismissed CLEVELAND V. AL-NAZER (2012 TRC 040781)
Our client was accused of driving while under the influence of drugs, or alcohol.
-
Not Guilty At Trial ROCKY RIVER V. D.F.
Client was charged with domestic violence against his wife.
-
Plea and Record Expunged STATE V. BAILEY, CUYAHOGA
Client was accused of stealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of property.
-
Charges Dismissed State v. Beckwith, Cuyahoga County
Student charged with the manufacturing of ecstasy.
-
Case Dismissed STATE V. J.S. (A JUVENILE) YOUNGSTOWN
Local counsel pushed for a plea to one of the sex related charges.
-
Acquittal State v. Tevin Biles
Client was identified as one of the alleged shooters at a New Year’s Eve party.
What The State Must Prove
To convict under O.R.C. 2923.24, the State generally must prove:
- You possessed or controlled the alleged “tool,” and
- You did so with the intent to use it criminally
As an intent-based charge, these cases usually do not turn on whether an item existed. They turn on whether the State can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the item was possessed or controlled with the purpose to use it criminally.
Two points matter early in these cases:
- The item does not have to be illegal. Prosecutors regularly apply this statute to everyday objects when they believe the surrounding circumstances support an inference of criminal intent.
- The State often files this charge to strengthen another allegation. It is commonly added to increase leverage, raise perceived severity, or support a broader narrative about intent.
Because the government rarely has direct evidence of “purpose,” it often tries to prove intent indirectly, through context, associations, statements, location, and what else was found or alleged. A strong defense pressures that theory at the element level: whether the inferences are justified, whether the evidence supports purpose (not mere suspicion), and whether lawful explanations fit the facts.
Examples: What Prosecutors Call “Criminal Tools”
This charge shows up in a wide range of cases, often alongside another allegation.
The “tool” may be framed as:
- A phone (alleged tool for drug activity or coordination)
- A vehicle (alleged tool to commit or flee an offense)
- Cash, bags, or containers (alleged distribution indicators)
- Keys, entry devices, or basic tools (in theft/burglary narratives)
- Digital items/accounts (in fraud or identity-related allegations)
Misdemeanor vs. Felony Charges
Possessing criminal tools is commonly charged as a first-degree misdemeanor, which can carry:
- Up to 180 days in jail
- Up to a $1,000 fine
It can be charged as a fifth-degree felony in circumstances the State argues elevate the case—for example, when prosecutors tie the alleged tool to felony conduct or to particular prohibited items under Ohio law.
Whether the charge is prosecuted as a misdemeanor and felony makes an enormous difference, as it can influence:
- Jail vs. prison exposure
- Fines and collateral consequences
- Bond conditions and perceived case severity
- Plea bargaining pressure and sentencing posture
If the State is treating the charge as a felony, one of the first defense priorities is determining whether the facts and the charging theory support felony grading, or whether the government is overreaching.
Forfeiture Risk: When the Government Tries to Take Property
Possession of criminal tools allegations are frequently paired with government efforts to seize and hold property, especially in cases involving vehicles, cash, or electronics.
A defense strategy often includes early focus on:
- Whether the seizure was lawful
- Whether the State can legally hold property pending the case
- Whether the forfeiture theory is supported by statute and admissible evidence
How These Charges Commonly Arise
Possessing criminal tools cases frequently come from:
- Traffic stops that expand into searches
- Searches of a home, car, or person incident to arrest
- Warrant executions tied to another investigation
- Co-defendant allegations or “someone said” narratives
- Digital investigations involving phones and accounts
The common thread is expansion: once law enforcement finds something it thinks supports a broader story, the charge is added.
