Jed York's no-contest plea ends his disorderly conduct case

Disposition card — last verified Aug. 26, 2026

This is an exceptional non-AI Risk Digest record for the lookup behind jed york no contest disorderly conduct charge outcome. It is written from press accounts that cite Columbiana County Municipal Court records, police materials, and court transaction records. The judgment entry itself has not been directly reviewed here, so the disposition is reportable with source flags rather than treated as a fully primary-confirmed court record.

The useful caution is the same one used in this site’s confirmed-versus-reported case record format: cite what is in the record set available to you, and keep the document boundary visible. Here, the public reporting is detailed and consistent on most of the disposition. It is still not a substitute for the signed judgment entry, especially on the jail-credit line.

Arrest and initial charges

York was arrested on Aug. 23, 2026, in East Palestine, Ohio, during an operation involving East Palestine police and the Mahoning Valley Human Trafficking Task Force. WKBN reported the time as 9:35 a.m. and the location as the Wheat Hill Mobile Home Community. The same local account reported a $5,000 bond. [3]

The initial reported charges were engaging in prostitution and possessing criminal tools. The arrest facts matter here only to identify the case and the charging path; the disposition turned on the next day’s plea agreement, not on a trial record or a contested evidentiary ruling. AP reported that York pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges in Ohio on Aug. 24, 2026. [1]

There is a small identification variance worth preserving. Some coverage identifies the defendant as Jed York, while other reporting uses a fuller legal-name form. Vindicator coverage also gives York’s age as 45, while several other outlets use 46. Those inconsistencies do not change the disposition, but they are the kind of variance that should be checked against the docket caption before a database entry treats one version as canonical. [4]

The no-contest plea and the amended disorderly conduct count

The central legal event was not simply that York “pleaded guilty.” The reported sequence is more exact: the engaging-in-prostitution charge was amended to disorderly conduct under the plea agreement, and York entered no-contest pleas to disorderly conduct and possessing criminal tools. AP, ABC7/ESPN, and other accounts describe the outcome as no-contest pleas followed by guilty findings or convictions. [1][2]

That distinction is not decorative. A nolo contendere, or no-contest, plea is generally a plea in which the defendant does not admit guilt while allowing the court to treat the charge for purposes of conviction and sentencing. Cornell’s Wex entry describes nolo contendere as a plea in which the defendant accepts conviction without admitting guilt, and the Ohio State Bar Association’s public explainer similarly separates a no-contest plea from an admission of guilt while explaining that the court may proceed to a finding. [5][6]

So the citable formulation is: York entered no-contest pleas; the court entered guilty findings or convictions on the resolved counts. A headline that shortens the event to “guilty plea” loses the plea type. The Vindicator headline, for example, says York “enters guilty plea,” while its story body reports the no-contest plea and the resulting guilty finding. [4]

The statutory anchors should be checked against the live Ohio Revised Code text before publication from a legal memo. The charge labels in the press record correspond to Ohio disorderly conduct and possessing-criminal-tools provisions, but this record does not quote the statutory elements because the available case material does not require an elements analysis and the court documents have not been directly reviewed.

Sentence, fines, forfeiture, and property disposition

The monetary disposition is the cleanest part of the record as currently reported. ABC7/ESPN reported total fines of $1,150: $150 on the amended disorderly conduct count and $1,000 on the possessing-criminal-tools count. The same account reported that $160 was forfeited to the Mahoning Valley Human Trafficking Task Force and that York’s cellphone was ordered returned. [2]

KRON4’s account is consistent with that fine-and-forfeiture structure, including the $1,150 total, the $160 forfeiture, and the cellphone return. [7]

The online course should be cited as a reported disposition fact, not inflated into a broader rehabilitative finding. The record set available here supports only that the course was completed as part of the case resolution; it does not support a conclusion about program content, effectiveness, or the court’s reason for accepting it.

The jail-time discrepancy is unresolved

The jail line should not be harmonized by guesswork. Several accounts report one day in jail, served concurrently, with credit for one day served. AP, NFL.com, The Guardian, KRON4, and ABC7/ESPN are in that group. [1][8][9][7][2]

Other reputable accounts report two days, with one-day credit. WKBN and CBS Sports fall on that side of the discrepancy. [3][10]

The deciding document is the court’s judgment entry or sentencing entry, not the number of outlets on either side. Until that entry is directly reviewed, the safest citable language is: most available press accounts report one day in jail served concurrently with one-day credit, while some accounts report two days with one-day credit; the exact jail term remains unverified pending direct judgment-entry review.

This is the same kind of mechanical uncertainty that matters in an Ohio court record with deadline and filing mechanics: the public narrative can be broadly right while a single docket line still controls the legally precise answer.

The denied sealing motion makes the record posture part of the outcome

The record-sealing ruling is not an afterthought. AP reported that Judge Danielle Menning denied a motion by defense attorney Frank Cassese to seal the records. ABC7/ESPN also reported the denial. [1][2]

That ruling matters because it leaves the public-record trail available, at least as reported, even though this article still has not directly accessed the primary judgment entry. In other words, the case is not hidden from public view by a successful sealing order, but the present article is still dependent on press descriptions of the court file.

For downstream citation, the sealing sentence should stay narrow: the defense moved to seal; Judge Menning denied the motion. The available material does not support broader claims about expungement eligibility, future sealing efforts, or the court’s reasoning unless the motion and order are obtained.

NFL review remains pending

The league issue comes after the criminal disposition, not before it. Sportico reported on the possibility of NFL review and owner-discipline context after the no-contest plea, and Pro Football Talk reported that the NFL would review the case under the Personal Conduct Policy. [11][12]

As of Aug. 26, 2026, the research record contains no league outcome. The open NFL item is therefore process, not punishment: review pending, no discipline confirmed. Any prediction about fine, suspension, ownership sanction, or comparative precedent would outrun the available record.

Citable outcome as of Aug. 26, 2026

A careful citation can say that York’s Ohio misdemeanor case was resolved on Aug. 24, 2026, after no-contest pleas in Columbiana County Municipal Court; the engaging-in-prostitution charge was amended to disorderly conduct; York was found guilty or convicted on the resolved disorderly conduct and possessing-criminal-tools counts; fines totaled $1,150; $160 was forfeited to the Mahoning Valley Human Trafficking Task Force; his cellphone was ordered returned; he completed an online prostitution-prevention course; and Judge Danielle Menning denied a defense motion to seal the records. [1][2][7]

Two flags should travel with that citation. First, the plea was no contest, not a guilty plea, even though the court reportedly entered guilty findings. Second, the exact jail term remains unsettled in press accounts until the judgment entry is directly reviewed. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy review remained the only open non-criminal process identified in the record as of Aug. 26, 2026.

References

1. 49ers owner Jed York pleads no contest to 2 misdemeanor charges in Ohio — AP News
2. San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York arrested in Ohio for prostitution, court documents show — ABC7/ESPN
3. 49ers owner arrested in East Palestine — WKBN
4. 49ers owner York enters guilty plea in area arrest — The Vindicator
5. nolo contendere — Cornell Legal Information Institute
6. What you should know about pleading no contest — Ohio State Bar Association
7. 49ers CEO Jed York arrested — KRON4
8. San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York pleads no contest to two misdemeanor charges in Ohio — NFL.com
9. San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York pleads no contest after arrest at Ohio trailer park — The Guardian
10. 49ers' Jed York arrested in Ohio — CBS Sports
11. Jed York 49ers No Contest Plea Possible NFL Punishment — Sportico
12. NFL will review Jed York case under Personal Conduct Policy — Pro Football Talk