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

D.Minn.: Court won’t enjoin investigation after SW on ptf’s cell phone

Plaintiff can’t get access to search warrant papers yet because of an ongoing investigation. Second, the court won’t enjoin the use of the information from his seized telephone or order its return because of the ongoing investigation. Lindell v. United … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Court won’t enjoin investigation after SW on ptf’s cell phone

The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says

The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says (“The committee said constitutional provisions, and Eastman’s own late filing, should end his appeal.”)

Posted in E-mail, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says

D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

An action for return of property under Rule 41(g) is not a motion to suppress and does not invoke any exclusionary rule. Eastman v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188438 (D.N.M. Oct. 14, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

TX1: Order to return cell phone in murder investigation was without jurisdiction

The trial court’s order ordering return of a cell phone seized in a murder investigation was void and reversed. “‘Suppression of evidence and return of property are not the same relief.’” Defendant had not yet been indicted, so the trial … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on TX1: Order to return cell phone in murder investigation was without jurisdiction

CA11: Declaratory judgment suit over search properly dismissed as interfering with criminal process

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment about a search issue underlying a criminal investigation. The district court dismissed because there was a remedy in the investigation, if it gets that far. Affirmed. Hawk Innovative Tech, LLC v. United States, 2022 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA11: Declaratory judgment suit over search properly dismissed as interfering with criminal process

D.V.I.: Govt couldn’t prove helicopter flyover was 1000′ or more; suppressed

The government flew a helicopter over defendant’s property to photograph a suspected marijuana grow. It could not provide testimony that the helicopter was flown at 1000′ or above in navigable air space. Defendant had a subjected expectation of privacy against … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Govt couldn’t prove helicopter flyover was 1000′ or more; suppressed

CA3: Unnecessarily keeping guns of innocent parents for 8 years violated 4A, 5A, and 2A

Police seized 46 firearms from a murderer’s parents that had nothing to do with his crimes and they were never used in any proceeding. Eight years later after the son’s death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal and habeas, the … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA3: Unnecessarily keeping guns of innocent parents for 8 years violated 4A, 5A, and 2A

DDC: Delay in return of seized cell phone not necessarily unreasonable; Rule 41(g) provides procedural due process

DC Metro police seized numerous cell phones from BLM protestors, and they sued to recover them. The DC police policy wasn’t followed, but only by negligence, and that doesn’t state a claim against it. Rule 41(g) applies despite lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Cell phones, Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on DDC: Delay in return of seized cell phone not necessarily unreasonable; Rule 41(g) provides procedural due process

CA11: § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state 4A claim

Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state a Fourth Amendment claim. Lyons v. City of Abbeville, Ala., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24110 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022). Defendant does not get return of … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Administrative search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Waiver | Comments Off on CA11: § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state 4A claim

N.D.W.Va.: A SW for those suspected of sending in drug-laced fake legal papers

For defense lawyers wondering about the increase in searches of legal mail, this case involved a search warrant of the house of someone suspected to sending in drug laced fake legal papers into federal prisons. Barker v. United States, 2022 … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: A SW for those suspected of sending in drug-laced fake legal papers

CA5: An intimidating police presence is not a seizure

An intimidating police presence is not a seizure. Tyson v. Cty. of Sabine, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 20902 (5th Cir. July 28, 2022). Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not taking depositions in his criminal case to develop his search … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on CA5: An intimidating police presence is not a seizure

Reason: What Is the FBI Trying To Hide About Its Raid on Innocent Americans’ Safe Deposit Boxes?

Reason: What Is the FBI Trying To Hide About Its Raid on Innocent Americans’ Safe Deposit Boxes? by Eric Boehm (“Federal prosecutors want to keep key details about the planning and execution of the March 2021 raid at U.S. Private … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Reason: What Is the FBI Trying To Hide About Its Raid on Innocent Americans’ Safe Deposit Boxes?

CA6 & FL1: Fact hemp is legal doesn’t make smell of MJ lack PC

The fact that hemp was legal doesn’t make the smell like marijuana a lack of probable cause. United States v. McCallister, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18642 (6th Cir. July 7, 2022) (people in a park); Hatcher v. State, 2022 Fla. … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA6 & FL1: Fact hemp is legal doesn’t make smell of MJ lack PC

WaPo: Agents seize phone of lawyer who pushed Trump false elector claims

WaPo: Agents seize phone of lawyer who pushed Trump false elector claims by Devlin Barrett (“John Eastman, a lawyer who lobbied for Mike Pence to declare Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election, is fighting the phone seizure”) The … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on WaPo: Agents seize phone of lawyer who pushed Trump false elector claims

IA: Admission of SW affidavit at trial with CI’s version violated confrontation

Admission of the search warrant affidavit here at trial with inadmissible hearsay of the CI was a violation of confrontation. State v. Martinez, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 410 (May 11, 2022). These search warrant materials remain sealed for one year. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on IA: Admission of SW affidavit at trial with CI’s version violated confrontation

NY Co.: SW for cell phone without time limitation was unreasonable

One search warrant for searching defendant’s phone with Cellebrite was without time limitation and was overbroad. People v. Gonzalez, 2022 NY Slip Op 22074, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 928 (N.Y.Co. Mar. 7, 2022). Defendant claimed his jail calls after 48 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NY Co.: SW for cell phone without time limitation was unreasonable

DC: Facebook has no right to a SW instead of subpoena for subscriber information on an account

A civil investigative subpoena to Facebook for information about posters of Covid misinformation was not unreasonable. n.3: “Meta suggests that the Fourth Amendment requires the District to obtain a search warrant to get this information. … One sufficient response is … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Social media warrants | Comments Off on DC: Facebook has no right to a SW instead of subpoena for subscriber information on an account

CA8: Def didn’t show REP in hospital room for plain view seizure of clothing

Defendant did not show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his hospital room where police entered and saw his clothes in plain view and seized them. United States v. Mattox, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5747 (8th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA8: Def didn’t show REP in hospital room for plain view seizure of clothing

AL: When DEA adopts a seizure for forfeiture, state courts lose jurisdiction to return property

When there’s a seizure for forfeiture and the DEA adopts it, the state court loses jurisdiction to return it. Hare v. Mack, 2022 Ala. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 21, 2022). Police responded to a shots fired call at an apartment where … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Forfeiture, Inevitable discovery, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on AL: When DEA adopts a seizure for forfeiture, state courts lose jurisdiction to return property

M.D.N.C.: Return of evidence denied because investigation ongoing

Plaintiff’s action for recovery of electronic and physical evidence seized is denied because the government asserts it is still needed for investigation. Stillwell v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246407 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2021). Defendant was stopped for driving … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.N.C.: Return of evidence denied because investigation ongoing