Schuman ruled that it would be "illogical" to suggest that the legislature, in enacting laws related to the return of seized property, intended property owners to have an absolute right to the return of nondocumentary property, such as clothing or money. "However, if that evidence takes documentary form, the owner loses that right and the public, in the [Freedom of Information Commission's] view, will have a right to copy and read it under the act," Schuman wrote. "There does not seem to be a logical reason for this distinction in the treatment of seized private property."