D.Ariz.: Threat to use a Taser vitiates consent

Defendant’s alleged consent at the I-19 checkpoint in Arizona was involuntary. She was on a bus that was stopped, she was seized, she could not leave the secondary checkpoint, the CBP agent followed her, “when Ms. Rodriguez hesitated or became non-compliant, Agent Salcido proceeded and Ms. Rodriguez was threatened with use of a taser.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153797 (D. Ariz. Sep. 10, 2018).

“Rule 41(g) is a means of recovering seized property, not forfeited property. United States v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 2004). Instead, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), is the exclusive mechanism to set aside declarations of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute.” United States v. Dotstry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154625 (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2018).

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

Comments are closed.