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

E.D.Mich.: Rule 41(g) motion denied for failure to show entitlement to seized property

For Rule 41(g) motion to return property: “Flemming has failed to prove that he is a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.’ In his motion, Flemming does not challenge the legality of the search and seizure in question. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Rule 41(g) motion denied for failure to show entitlement to seized property

M.D.La.: Bench warrant surfacing for def made pat down legal by inevitable discovery even if frisk invalid

Officers responded to a wellness check and found two people passed out in a car. One couldn’t be roused, but defendant could and he was removed from the car and patted down for officer safety. The patdown was reasonable. Even … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Bench warrant surfacing for def made pat down legal by inevitable discovery even if frisk invalid

M.D.Tenn.: Laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property

The doctrine of laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property. The seizure of defendant’s property was 2003. Aside from other difficulties (like forfeiture), defendant just waited too long. United States v. Kimball, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136952 … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property

M.D.Fla.: Def failed to show equitable right to return of property under 41(g) while he’s in jail

Defendant failed to make a showing for equitable relief for return of property under Rule 41(g) while he’s in jail. United States v. Rehaif, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61019 (M.D. Fla. April 4, 2017):

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Def failed to show equitable right to return of property under 41(g) while he’s in jail

GA: Statute on return of property must be followed; can’t apply to court first

In a juvenile proceeding, recovery of the juvenile’s cell phone required following a statutory procedure which wasn’t. One can’t just apply to the court first. The further claim that retention of the phone violated the Fourth Amendment wasn’t raised below … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on GA: Statute on return of property must be followed; can’t apply to court first

NE: Return of property not required until after post-conviction is concluded

As long as post-conviction proceedings or a federal prosecution are possible, the state has the ability to keep the evidence without return to the defendant. The state statute says “may” not shall. State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304, 2017 Neb. … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NE: Return of property not required until after post-conviction is concluded

W.D.Ark.: Def counsel has apparent authority to receive property returned after arrest

In a civil action for return of property: “In the specific context of the disposition of property, district courts have found that the government acts appropriately when it disposes of property in a manner consistent with actions or representations made … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Def counsel has apparent authority to receive property returned after arrest

D.Nev.: Govt responds it won’t use evidence seized at trial so motion for return of property or to suppress granted

The government seized defendant’s iPad and but didn’t search it because they didn’t have a password. Finally, they decided not to attempt to use it as evidence, so the motion for return of property is granted. The government didn’t intend … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Govt responds it won’t use evidence seized at trial so motion for return of property or to suppress granted

OH2: Property can’t be returned when it still has evidentiary value

“There was little evidence regarding the floppy disks, CDs, and Rolodex, but the burden was on Webber to demonstrate that she was entitled to their return. Upon review of the record, the evidence before the trial court supported a conclusion … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH2: Property can’t be returned when it still has evidentiary value

E.D.Cal.: No right to return of iPad and iPhone as long as they have evidentiary value, including through appeal

Defendant does not have a right to return of seized property under Rule 41(g) as long as there is potential evidentiary value, including through appeal. Defendant does not claim that his iPad and iPhone weren’t illegally seized to begin with; … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: No right to return of iPad and iPhone as long as they have evidentiary value, including through appeal

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