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

E.D.Tenn.: When state officers seize and hold property in federal case, return of property under Rule 41(g) not possible

State officers obtained a search warrant for defendant’s property which they held but was being used in a federal prosecution. Rule 41(g) does not enable the defendant to get return of property held by state officials even though there is … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: When state officers seize and hold property in federal case, return of property under Rule 41(g) not possible

C.D.Cal.: Limited motion for return of property doesn’t prevent transfer from feds to state; privilege issues can still be litigated later

The petitioner moved for return of property, seized computer information, under Rule 41(g) for purposes of conducting business. The government moved to transfer the information to state authorities for their own investigation. The fact there is a potential attorney-client privilege … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Limited motion for return of property doesn’t prevent transfer from feds to state; privilege issues can still be litigated later

D.Kan.: Rule 41(g) requires there be no adequate remedy at law; here there is one, so denied

The government didn’t seize $15,000 at issue here: It allegedly told counsel to hold on to it, and that’s in the District of Kansas. This is the wrong forum and there’s an adequate remedy at law, so the Rule 41(g) … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Rule 41(g) requires there be no adequate remedy at law; here there is one, so denied

CA6: Rule 41(g) motion for return of property doesn’t lie in federal court when state officers seized, even in a federal prosecution

Rule 41(g) motion for return of property requires that officers of the federal government have seized it. Where state and local authorities seized the property, a 41(g) motion doesn’t lie in federal court. United States v. Price, 2016 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA6: Rule 41(g) motion for return of property doesn’t lie in federal court when state officers seized, even in a federal prosecution

NE: Def is presumptively entitled to return of noncontraband property seized from him when his case is over

Defendant is presumptively entitled to return of noncontraband property seized from him when his case is over. “As in State v. Agee, supra, we conclude that once the criminal proceedings against Dubray were concluded, Dubray was presumptively entitled to the … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NE: Def is presumptively entitled to return of noncontraband property seized from him when his case is over

OH: Court couldn’t order return of property where statute gave executive branch discretion to not return

A warrant was issued to permit ODA officers to enter property to look for wild animals being kept there. The warrant did not require seizure but referred to the statute that vests that discretion in the Director. The judge thus … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH: Court couldn’t order return of property where statute gave executive branch discretion to not return

M.D.Fla.: Rule 41(g) proceeding can’t be used to relitigate lost forfeiture

Rule 41(g) on return of property cannot be used to relitigate a final forfeiture order. United States v. Varnedoe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55933 (M.D.Fla. April 26, 2016). Defendant’s warrantless blood draw was unlawful because defendant was presented with the … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Rule 41(g) proceeding can’t be used to relitigate lost forfeiture

W.D.Mo.: No right to return of electronic data where def already has it from gov’t

A motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) is properly denied where the defendant has complete electronic versions of the records. United States v. Womack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39097 (W.D.Mo. March 25, 2016). Defendant was pulled over because … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: No right to return of electronic data where def already has it from gov’t

E.D.Ky.: Holding up hands when asked for consent was consent

“In addition, the Government testified that Stepp voluntarily consented to the search. However, even assuming that Stepp merely raised his hands in silence upon the trooper’s search request, the Sixth Circuit has established that any such acquiescence indicates assent.” United … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Holding up hands when asked for consent was consent

D.Conn.: While def should have presented affidavit of standing, the SW inventory supports his standing

In a corporate office search, defendant should have presented an affidavit to show his standing in the office space. Despite that, however, the government’s search inventory strongly supports his standing because it shows documents taken from what was described as … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Computer searches, Franks doctrine, Overbreadth, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on D.Conn.: While def should have presented affidavit of standing, the SW inventory supports his standing

AL: Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property

Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property. Gray v. City of Opelika, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 254 (Nov. 6, 2015). A traffic offense justified this stop, then “the smell of … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on AL: Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property

LA3: The person who owned a document obtained by SW clearly has standing for its return

Somebody was denied a job at a hospital, and complained to the Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff’s Office who sought a search warrant for the letter received that apparently caused the job denial. A judge pro tem issued the search warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on LA3: The person who owned a document obtained by SW clearly has standing for its return