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

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 wasn’t, so denied. United States v. Montes, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182851 (E.D.Tex. May 1, 2014).*

The encounter between defendant and the officer was consensual up to the point defendant admitted that he was armed. Then a frisk was appropriate. People v. Lake, 2015 IL App (4th) 130072, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 171 (March 16, 2015).*

The warrantless blood draw was without warrant or exigency, and it should have been suppressed. Perez v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2492 (Tex.App.–Houston (1st Dist.) March 17, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Forfeiture, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.