The Grady County Courthouse in Chickasha, Oklahoma, where McCurry v. Grady County Sheriff was filed. Photo: Crimsonedge34 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0
Stacey McCurry of Stillwater, Oklahoma, is suing the Grady County Sheriff’s Office for an ATV that was stolen in Payne County in 2020. The office’s reason for not handing it back, as KGOU reported it, is that a judge has already titled the machine to the county and the county paid to fix it.
The ATV surfaced in Grady County in 2021, according to KGOU. On June 9, 2025, Sheriff Gary Boggess filed a handwritten petition saying it was unclaimed and on a list to be destroyed, and a judge granted the sheriff’s office title the same day, KGOU reported. McCurry learned where the ATV was this year, when it was flagged in the National Crime Information Center, the FBI-run database police agencies use to check for stolen vehicles and other property, and the Payne County sheriff’s office called. Grady County turned down the request to return it. Undersheriff Kori Brewer said the title had already been transferred and the office had spent tax money repairing the ATV, KGOU reported.
McCurry filed McCurry v. Grady County Sheriff, No. CJ-2026-00297, in Grady County District Court in Chickasha on Aug. 28. The docket lists a petition for replevin, conversion and a request for an order to stay, and classes it as civil relief of more than $10,000. Replevin is the suit an owner files to get a specific piece of property back. Conversion is the claim that someone treated that property as their own.
What the statute puts between a sheriff and a stolen ATV
Oklahoma lets a sheriff’s office keep unclaimed property for its own use, but Title 22, Section 1325 makes the office ask a court first. As compiled by Justia, the section has the agency file an application in district court listing the property, identifying details and any known owners. The court sets a hearing 10 to 20 days after the filing. Written notice goes to known owners by first-class mail at least 10 days before the hearing, and notice is also posted in three public places in the county or published in a legal newspaper. Only after that process can the court order the property kept for agency use or transferred to another government body.
A petition filed June 9, 2025, and granted the same day leaves no room for a 10-day notice window. KGOU reported that McCurry’s attorney, Ryland Rivas of Chickasha, questions how a stolen ATV came to be titled to the agency on the agency’s own claim, and says the office either did not follow Section 1325 or there is no record that it did. Backfire News has not seen the petition or the order; the account of both comes from KGOU. Section 1325 was amended effective Nov. 1, 2025, and I have not compared the text that was in force in June 2025 with the current one.
The mailed notice goes to known owners, and an ATV reported stolen to NCIC has a reporting owner on file. Whether the sheriff’s office ran the ATV through the database before it filed the 2025 petition is not in any public record I could find.
Repair bills and the question of title
Brewer’s two reasons, the transferred title and the repair spending, do not carry the same weight. The repair spending is a dollar figure the county has not made public in anything I could review, and money can be argued over after the fact. The title depends on the proceeding that produced it. If the hearing and notice Section 1325 describes never took place, the same-day order is where the case turns, and a stack of repair receipts is a thin substitute for an owner’s chance to show up and claim the machine.
Getting the machine back also costs the owner money up front. The docket lists $248.39 in fees and costs against the petition and $10 for the summons, my addition of the line items.
Two more property suits against the same office
KGOU reported two other property disputes involving the Grady County Sheriff’s Office, and Rivas told the station this is the third such case he has taken. In CJ-2022-00006, a suit that grew out of burglary search warrants, property valued at more than $71,000 was seized, including multiple Ford pickups, a semi truck, a triple-axle gooseneck trailer, welding tools, liquor bottles, Barbie dolls and a bow and arrow. According to KGOU, much of it has not come back despite a court order, and the sheriff told a judge some of it was stolen from the evidence container. In CJ-2026-187, filed in June, a Canadian County woman’s two handguns seized in 2024 were returned, and Rivas told KGOU they came back after being shot, taken apart and cleaned.
Where the case stands
The district attorney’s office, Jason Hicks and Assistant District Attorney Charles Sifers, entered an appearance for the sheriff on Sept. 18, and the office filed its answer to the petition on Sept. 29, according to the docket. The case is assigned to Judge Kory S. Kirkland, and the docket shows no scheduled hearing as of Nov. 9. I have not read the answer, so I cannot say what legal position the office has taken beyond Brewer’s statement as KGOU reported it. KGOU’s report carried no statement from Boggess beyond his court petition. None of the claims has been decided.
Is a sheriff’s office that spent tax money repairing a recovered stolen vehicle entitled to keep it, or does the owner get it back no matter what the repairs cost?
About the Author
