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 to use anything from his car at trial, so that motion to suppress is granted, too [but some courts just say it’s moot]. United States v. Bundy, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25506 (D.Nev. Feb. 22, 2017).

Nothing in records obtained after the trial showed a basis for attacking the wiretap in this case, so the motion for new trial is denied. United States v. Barbary, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3278 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2017).*

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

Comments are closed.