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

E.D.N.Y.: Return of property motion denied because forfeiture action coming

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Hall

A motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) was denied where the government represented that it was about to institute proceedings for forfeiture or a criminal proceedings. Motions for return of property are to be exercised sparingly and not … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Return of property motion denied because forfeiture action coming

CA9: Once criminal proceedings are over, the original search isn’t an issue in Rule 41(g) proceedings for return of property

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Hall

Defendant’s Rule 41(g) motion was granted in part and denied in part. The district court did not err in refusing to reconsider the original search question. “[I]n the context of Rule 41, that after criminal proceedings are completed, ‘the legality … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Once criminal proceedings are over, the original search isn’t an issue in Rule 41(g) proceedings for return of property

Cal.3: “Reason to believe” in administrative search law means same as PC

Posted on March 26, 2015 by Hall

Treating an examination of an insurance company’s unclaimed property as an administrative search, “reason to believe” in the California unclaimed property law is no greater than probable cause to get a search warrant, following Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Cal.3: “Reason to believe” in administrative search law means same as PC

E.D.Tex.: Notice of forfeiture certified mail to jail is proper notice

Posted on March 18, 2015 by Hall

Certified mail of notice of a forfeiture to the jail defendant was residing in was sufficient notice. A motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) has to be filed in the district where the property was seized, and this … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Forfeiture, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Tex.: Notice of forfeiture certified mail to jail is proper notice

D.Kan.: Return of property denied; although this case dismissed, codefendant’s case still alive

Posted on January 26, 2015 by Hall

Return of property denied despite the fact defendant’s case was dismissed. Defendant’s wife was his codefendant, and she was convicted, but she’s litigating a 2255, so the evidence may still be needed by the government. United States v. Neighbors, 2015 … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Return of property denied; although this case dismissed, codefendant’s case still alive

NYLJ: Challenge to State’s Retention of Seized Computers Dismissed

Posted on January 8, 2015 by Hall

NYLJ: Challenge to State’s Retention of Seized Computers Dismissed by Andrew Keshner: The state’s seizure and two-year retention of computers during a criminal case did not amount to unlawful taking, a Fourth Department panel ruled, reversing a Court of Claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on NYLJ: Challenge to State’s Retention of Seized Computers Dismissed

PA: Motion for return of property in criminal case was remedy, not civil case years later

Posted on January 4, 2015 by Hall

Defendant had to seek return of his property during the pendency of his criminal case. A separate civil case more than seven years later was barred under state law. Commonwealth v. Allen, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3526 (December 29, 2014). A … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on PA: Motion for return of property in criminal case was remedy, not civil case years later

MD: A motion for return of property can’t include a damages claim; that’s a separate action

Posted on December 19, 2014 by Hall

A motion for return of seized property can’t include a claim for damages; it’s only for return of property that the owner believes he or she is entitled to. A separate action has to be filed for that. Bord v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on MD: A motion for return of property can’t include a damages claim; that’s a separate action

D.Me.: A private searcher’s fervent desire to help the police is still a private search

Posted on November 28, 2014 by Hall

A computer tech working on a computer saw “pictures of pre-teen girls in gymnast uniforms,” so he searched the search history and found searches for non-nude preteens and “pre-teen porn.” He reported it to the local police who did not … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Me.: A private searcher’s fervent desire to help the police is still a private search

IL implied consent statute not unconstitutional under McNeely

Posted on November 10, 2014 by Hall

Illinois’s implied-consent statutory scheme did not unconstitutionally circumvent defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to take the chemical analysis by suspending his driver’s license and introducing his refusal against him at his criminal trial. A per se … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on IL implied consent statute not unconstitutional under McNeely

TX8: That person signing affidavit for SW was different than one named at top didn’t matter–it’s an oath

Posted on November 2, 2014 by Hall

The officer named as the affiant wasn’t the one who signed the affidavit for search warrant. That wasn’t material because was an oath by somebody. Patterson v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11996 (Tex. App.–El Paso October 31, 2014). A … Continue reading →

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on TX8: That person signing affidavit for SW was different than one named at top didn’t matter–it’s an oath

WaPo: Activists and Hill staffers meet to discuss curbs to asset-forfeiture laws

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Hall

WaPo: Activists and Hill staffers meet to discuss curbs to asset-forfeiture laws by Robert O’Harrow Jr.: Two dozen civil liberties activists, legal specialists and Capitol Hill staffers from across the political spectrum convened Thursday to discuss reforms for civil asset-forfeiture … Continue reading →

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on WaPo: Activists and Hill staffers meet to discuss curbs to asset-forfeiture laws

E.D.Va.: “Courts have been clear that police need not corroborate information given by known informants.”

Posted on September 29, 2014 by Hall

“Courts have been clear that police need not corroborate information given by known informants. Like the CI in Harris, the CI in this case was known to provide reliable information that led to arrests. Thus, police corroboration was unnecessary. But … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: “Courts have been clear that police need not corroborate information given by known informants.”

CA2: Court lacks “high level of confidence” for inevitable discovery to apply

Posted on September 16, 2014 by Hall

Here, the search discovering defendant’s illegal firearms violated the Fourth Amendment, but the government argued for inevitable discovery, but the court lacks a “high level of confidence” that the officers would have inevitably discovered it. The government’s argument was essentially … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Inevitable discovery, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA2: Court lacks “high level of confidence” for inevitable discovery to apply