CA9: Evidence seized by state not taken or used by feds not subject to Rule 41(g)

State officers seized defendant’s Rolex watch in a search, and there was a federal prosecution, but the watch was never part of it nor evidence of anything. Thus, Rule 41(g) affords him no relief here. There’s no constructive federal possession under 41(g). United States v. Gasparyan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33898 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).

Prison cell search claim fails as a matter of law. Graham v. Felty, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267433 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2025).*

Stone bars petitioner’s 2254 over his search claim. Mendonca v. Warden, Madison Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267435 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2025).*

“[T]he [166 page] affidavit establishes sufficient facts to establish a proper nexus between the evidence to be seized—such as the cell phone—and Target Premises 8” and probable cause. United States v. Hester-Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267569 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Nexus, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.