D.Conn.: Federal court won’t order return of phone still subject to state court case

In a motion for return of property, a state search warrant was issued for defendant’s phone and the warrant authorized a federal forensic examination of the phone. The need for the phone is over in federal court, but not state court, and there’s a separate remedy there. United States v. Lawhorn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63909 (D. Conn. Apr. 3, 2025).

“This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unconstitutional search and seizure of plaintiff Mike Pop’s Jeep arises out of a series of unfortunate actions during which Pop, despite having valid title to the vehicle, was forced to navigate a maze of government bureaucracy and police officers who all believed—incorrectly—that his Jeep was stolen. The sequence of events culminated when defendant Sheriff’s deputies, Gregory Gunther and Anthony Turner, were dispatched to Pop’s home where they persuaded Pop to consent to the surrender of the vehicle. Pop now alleges his consent was coerced, amounting to an unreasonable seizure of his vehicle. The district court denied the deputies’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity. Because the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, we reverse.” Pop v. Brookfield Chrysler Dodge Jeep, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7877 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).*

“Balancing the four factors set forth in State v. Bowley … (reliability and credibility of informant, description of vehicle, officer’s observations of traffic violations, and timelag between report of criminal activity and stop), we conclude that Lazure’s investigatory stop of Flodman was reasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we determine Lazure had reliable information that provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting Flodman had unlawfully left the scene of a property damage accident. Because the investigatory stop of Flodman’s pickup was supported by reasonable suspicion, the county court did not err in denying Flodman’s motion to suppress, and the district court did not err in affirming the county court’s decision.” State v. Flodman, 33 Neb. App. 504 (Apr. 1, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.