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) motion is denied. United States v. Real Prop. Commonly Known as 7208 East 65th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182957 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2015):

Claimants invoke Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), which provides, “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.” Rule 41(g) provides an equitable remedy that is available only if the movant can show irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law. United States v. Copeman, 458 F.3d 1070, 1071 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Clymore v. United States, 164 F.3d 569, 571 (10th Cir. 1999)).

This entry was posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.