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

N.D.Ga.: IP information is not governed by Carpenter

IP information is not governed by Carpenter. “Obtaining information from Kik, Sprint, and Comcast did not allow law enforcement to track Defendant Jenkins’s physical location over an extended period. At most, it allowed them a lead in identifying him — … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: IP information is not governed by Carpenter

D.Neb.: SW for cell phone defeats motion for return of phone for time being

Defendant’s cell phone was seized when he was arrested. Five days later, the government sought a search warrant for the phone. Defendant isn’t yet entitled to return of the phone. United States v. Gonzalez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61279 (D. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Neb.: SW for cell phone defeats motion for return of phone for time being

OH2: Denial of motion for return of property affirmed on appeal for lack of a hearing transcript

Defendant’s motion for return of property was properly denied, but it’s because he failed to bring up a record of the hearing in the trial court. State v. White, 2019-Ohio-1264, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 1342 (2d Cir. Apr. 5, 2019).* … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH2: Denial of motion for return of property affirmed on appeal for lack of a hearing transcript

IN: Petition for return of firearms seized granted; state’s evidence too stale to carry burden

In a petition for return of firearms seized from an alleged dangerous person, the state didn’t put on proof of anything recent, so the petition should have been granted. Redington v. State, 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 146 (Apr. 5, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on IN: Petition for return of firearms seized granted; state’s evidence too stale to carry burden

D.Ariz.: No damages collectable in a motion for return of property

One can’t get damages in a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. Hall v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56524 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2019). There was probable cause for search of the premises, and defendant lacks standing … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: No damages collectable in a motion for return of property

MA: Probation GPS monitoring can be accessed after the fact to prove def’s location in a new crime

Defendant was on probation and had GPS monitoring as a condition. It was reasonable for the state to access the historical GPS data later when defendant was suspected of a crime. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 481 Mass. 710 (Mar. 26, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on MA: Probation GPS monitoring can be accessed after the fact to prove def’s location in a new crime

S.D.Ga.: Rule 41(g) doesn’t enable return of property the govt doesn’t have

Property not in the hands of the federal government cannot be ordered returned under Rule 41(g). Administratively forfeited case can’t be returned; there was a remedy. United States v. Morris, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45071 (S.D.Ga. Mar. 19, 2019). Defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Rule 41(g) doesn’t enable return of property the govt doesn’t have

S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property

“Where, as here, an indictment has been filed and criminal proceedings are ongoing, the proper means for seeking return of seized property and to challenge the constitutionality of a search is a motion to suppress evidence.” United States v. Flick, … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property

C.D.Cal. LAPD didn’t violate 4A by not returning a seized gun without a court order as required by CA law

Plaintiff sued LAPD for not returning firearms seized without a state court order as required by California law. Plaintiff hasn’t shown that the LAPD policy violates the Fourth Amendment. Wright v. Beck, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15778 (C.D. Cal. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on C.D.Cal. LAPD didn’t violate 4A by not returning a seized gun without a court order as required by CA law

D.N.M.: The fact a SW might be invalid isn’t grounds for an injunction for return of property where prosecution was still contemplated

Plaintiff seeks an injunction contending that the seizure of tax resister literature violated the First and Fourth Amendment. The seizure was based on a warrant that it is evidence of a crime not yet prosecuted. The fact the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on D.N.M.: The fact a SW might be invalid isn’t grounds for an injunction for return of property where prosecution was still contemplated

CA9: Court can’t order return of property govt doesn’t have

Defendant can’t get an order for return of property where he can’t show that the government even has it. United States v. Tziu-Uc, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34105 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018). Self-represented defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Court can’t order return of property govt doesn’t have

S.D.Cal.: Yahoo’s intensive internal investigation into CP trafficking reported to NCMEC and then law enforcement was purely private search

Yahoo conducted an extensive internal investigation with public source information and its own records to identify accounts trafficking in child pornography from the Philippines. They reported twice to law enforcement and to NCMEC, and then law enforcement got involved. Yahoo’s … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Yahoo’s intensive internal investigation into CP trafficking reported to NCMEC and then law enforcement was purely private search