D.Nev.: Govt’s stated intent to forfeit requires motion for return of property be denied

Motion for return of property seized five weeks ago is denied. The government will image electronics and return them. That which is subject to forfeiture has to await it. United States v. Wells, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168017 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2019).

Officer’s observation that defendant was combative and argumentative when first stopped, and the officer confirmed from EPIC that defendant had been armed before was shown on body camera and was credible. That formed a basis for lengthening the detention. United States v. Fuchs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168515 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2019).*

The legality of the arrest doesn’t always preclude admission of evidence. Here, it was in plain view and is admissible. State v. Buckley, 2019-Ohio-3991, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4056 (11th Dist. Sept. 30, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.