Rule 41(g) motions for return of property must be filed within 6 years of the conclusion of the case

The W.D. Ark. holds that a civil action for return of property under Rule 41(g) with a six year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), must be filed within six years of “the conclusion of criminal proceedings, U.S. v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2004).” Defendant had to know when his property was seized, and the six years expired August 25, 2006 (six years and ten days after the J&C, from which there was no appeal). His action was filed in December 2005 and was untimely. Only the Seventh and Tenth Circuits have ruled on the issue. United States v. Mendoza, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84881 (W.D. Ark. November 21, 2006).

Lack of findings on apparent authority to consent required remand for findings. There was an indication in the record that an objecting co-tenant could have been removed in attempt to avoid denial of consent contrary to Randolph. United States v. Groves, 470 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. November 22, 2006)* (unpublished).

Reasonable suspicion: “suspicious movements (which continued after he was told to stop) together with his extreme nervousness and his close proximity to a street known for illegal drug sales, police officers could reasonably believe their safety or the safety of others was in danger.” United States v. King, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 28996 (D.C. Cir. October 2, 2006)* (memorandum opinion).

Informant information that public details could only be corroborated was insufficient for reasonable suspicion. Trial court’s suppression order affirmed. State v. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261, 298 Wis. 2d 99, 726 N.W.2d 337 (2006):

P17 To recapitulate, the police were able to corroborate: (1) Kolk’s identity; (2) what kind of vehicle he drove; and (3) the fact that he would drive it, possibly on the way to Madison. This information strikes us as both more widely available and less significant than that in (Roosevelt) Williams, in which the informant provided specific information about the drug transactions that she was witnessing, and we hold it insufficient to uphold Kolk’s detention.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.