E.D.Tenn.: Return of property denied where gov’t still has interest in use of property

Because of a continuing interest in the property, the motion for return of financial records is denied, but defendant’s reading glasses should be returned to him. Defendant’s property was seized in Pennsylvania but defendant was indicted in the Eastern District of Tennessee. Under the rule, a motion for return of property would have to be filed where it was seized, but, because the government doesn’t object, it will be heard here. United States v. Bolze, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151731 (E.D. Tenn. December 22, 2011):

“A defendant’s motion for return of property will be unavailing where the government has a continuing interest in the property.” United States v. Francis, 646 F.2d 251, 263 (6th Cir. 1981). Defendant Bolze has appealed his sentence in this case. Accordingly, the Government has a continuing interest in the property while there remains the chance that the case could be remanded. See United States v. Nelson, 190 F. App’x 712, 715 (10th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that “the government has a legitimate interest in maintaining control of property relevant to the prosecution and sentencing of a defendant until his criminal proceedings are final” but also observing that the property must be relevant to sentencing).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.