E.D.Cal.: Motion for return of things denied until 2255 resolved

Defendant seeks return of things of potential evidentiary value. The government opposes on the ground that a 2255 has not yet been filed, and the things might still have value. That’s reasonable for the court. United States v. Saldivar, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210241 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019).

“Whether, on the particular facts of this case, the deputy had reasonable suspicion that Pagoaga-Rios violated § 545.363, is not readily resolved by reference to Texas law. See Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430; see also Delafuente v. State, 414 S.W.3d 173, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). [¶] However, we need not reach that question, because even if the deputy erred in determining that he had a legal basis to stop Pagoaga-Rios, his mistake of law can ‘give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment,’ if it was objectively reasonable. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 534, 539 (2014).” United States v. Pagoaga-Rios, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36154 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.