WA: Claimants can use motion for return of property seized for serial forfeiture seizures to speed up proceed

Defendant’s vehicle was seized for taking a whitetailed buck out of season. “¶17 The trial court understandably was concerned that by sequentially seizing property, the government could unreasonably deprive people of the use of their property by prolonging proceedings. However, the remedy for unlawful seizure is a motion for return of property rather than a hurried forfeiture process. CrR 2.3(e).” Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife v. One 1999 Ford F350 Diesel Pickup Truck, 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1714 (July 17, 2014).*

“The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s house because defendant gave officers consent to search his residence and the consent was not contaminated by the initial warrantless entry into the residence by an officer who was pursuing a woman who fled into the house at the sight of the officers arriving at the house and exited from the house. While the officer who entered the house drew his handgun from his holster when he was pursuing the woman into the house, he put his weapon into his holster upon encountering defendant in the house, asked defendant to step outside to talk with the officer, and obtained defendant’s consent to make a sweep of the house.” [Lexis overview] State v. Hammock, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 679 (July 15, 2014).*