Category Archives: Rule 41(g) / Return of property

S.D.Ohio: Def not entitled to return of property deemed “classified”

Defendant is not entitled to return of property that the government has deemed “classified.” United States v. Montgomery, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29115 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2021) (“In re Search Warrant for the Person of John F. Gill, 2014 … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Def not entitled to return of property deemed “classified”

Orchids of Asia Day Spa unlawfully made videos ordered destroyed

Reason: Cops Must Destroy Illegal Surveillance Videos From Spa Visited by Robert Kraft by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“Authorities ‘shall destroy the videos unlawfully obtained through the surveillance of the Orchids of Asia Day Spa,’ a federal judge says.”) Techdirt: Federal … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Orchids of Asia Day Spa unlawfully made videos ordered destroyed

Reason: Cops Must Destroy Illegal Surveillance Videos From Spa Visited by Robert Kraft

Reason: Cops Must Destroy Illegal Surveillance Videos From Spa Visited by Robert Kraft by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“Authorities ‘shall destroy the videos unlawfully obtained through the surveillance of the Orchids of Asia Day Spa,’ a federal judge says.”)

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Reason: Cops Must Destroy Illegal Surveillance Videos From Spa Visited by Robert Kraft

S.D.Ill.: Rule 41(g) doesn’t permit return of property held by state officers

“As this Court has tried to explain several times, the property Turner seeks is held by the Illinois State Police–not the Federal Government. The Court cannot order the Government to return something that it does not have. For these reasons, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Rule 41(g) doesn’t permit return of property held by state officers

CA3: A predicate to a 41(g) motion to return property is a prior request

“To the extent Baer complains of the Government’s failure to return his devices, his argument fails because he never sought their return. Defendants who never seek the return of the property cannot argue that delay violated the Fourth Amendment. United … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA3: A predicate to a 41(g) motion to return property is a prior request

CA11: Standing required for 41(g) motion for return of property

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for lack of a threshold showing of standing and justiciability. United States v. Stoune, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1178 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2021). The … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Standing required for 41(g) motion for return of property

CA5: Examination of addresses on package was reasonable and led to RS

There was reasonable suspicion for detaining this package based on the lack of veracity of the delivery and return addresses. Examination of the package in the mail sorting system was not a search or seizure. United States v. Jones, 2020 … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA5: Examination of addresses on package was reasonable and led to RS

D.Minn.: SW for ion scan of door for presence of drugs was at least subject to GFE

The search warrant here for swabbing defendant’s door for an ion scan to determine presence of drugs didn’t describe what the ion scan would show. The existence of case law from at least 1999 supporting ion scan warrants satisfies good … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Good faith exception, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Minn.: SW for ion scan of door for presence of drugs was at least subject to GFE

W.D.Pa.: Intervention for return of A-C privileged information denied as moot because they have the information

Intervention in a criminal case to attempt to recover information obtained in alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege is denied as moot. They already have that information, and there is a fundamental difference between recovery of property under Rule 41(g) … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Intervention for return of A-C privileged information denied as moot because they have the information

D.Ore.: Illegibility of judge’s signature on SW not 4A violation

Just because the state trial judge’s signature was illegible doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The judge’s name was stamped below. United States v. McElroy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132608 (D. Ore. July 24, 2020). Franks challenge fails: “Thus, the bottom … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on D.Ore.: Illegibility of judge’s signature on SW not 4A violation

D.Neb.: No return of electronic media that had CP on it because def could possibly recover the contraband after erasure

Defendant is not entitled to return of electronic devices and media containing child pornography because of the mere possibility that the contraband could be recovered from it even after erasure. United States v. Buttercase, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125078 (D. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Neb.: No return of electronic media that had CP on it because def could possibly recover the contraband after erasure

N.D.Ohio: Private party, here the owner, can be enlisted to help in computer search

Both the Fourth Amendment and Ohio law permitted law enforcement to seek private assistance in executing a search warrant, here of a computer, and the search was conducted by the company that owned the computer. United States v. Powell, 2020 … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Private party, here the owner, can be enlisted to help in computer search

OH9: Motion for returned property may still be appropriate after conviction

“[W]e find that a motion for the return of seized property may be a viable means to request the return of property even after conviction. Therefore, the trial court erred when it denied Mr. Castagnola’s motion for the return of … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH9: Motion for returned property may still be appropriate after conviction

MN: Return of digital copies of attorney’s files seized by SW was only issue and now moot; legality of SW comes later

The attorney here was the target of a search warrant for all her files where the attorney was the suspect, not a client. That distinguishes O’Connor. The parties, the client interveners, and amici have briefed all kinds of constitutional arguments … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on MN: Return of digital copies of attorney’s files seized by SW was only issue and now moot; legality of SW comes later

W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

Just because the government hasn’t yet accessed defendant’s iPhone because it can’t crack the code to unlock it doesn’t mean that defendant can get it back under Rule 41(g). It’s still potential evidence. United States v. Morgan, 2020 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

ID: Lack of objection to body cam video showing refusal of consent wasn’t plain error

The police properly seized defendant’s home to preserve evidence of murder on exigent circumstances. There was also a reasonable protective sweep. Defendant didn’t object to the body cam video that had a refusal to consent to the house search, and … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on ID: Lack of objection to body cam video showing refusal of consent wasn’t plain error