A motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) was denied where the government represented that it was about to institute proceedings for forfeiture or a criminal proceedings. Motions for return of property are to be exercised sparingly and not to interfere with criminal investigations. In re Premises Known & Described As 100 Sweeneydale Ave., Bayshore, N.Y., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73668 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2015)<\/p>\n
The record supports that defendant\u2019s mother consented to a search of the premises while he was on supervised release. He never refused consent; he just said he\u2019d think about it. United States v. Mitchell<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9488 (8th Cir. June 8, 2015).*<\/p>\n The affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to search defendant\u2019s property in California. \u201cThe affidavit indicates that Agent Cunningham and his team conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation relating to Defendant’s activities. They gathered evidence from a variety of sources and thereby verified and corroborated the information they discovered. The affidavit contained information obtained through controlled deliveries, confidential human sources, the use of computer, law enforcement, financial and other public records, and an interview with the Defendant.\u201d United States v. Brecker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73719 (E.D.Mo. April 6, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) was denied where the government represented that it was about to institute proceedings for forfeiture or a criminal proceedings. Motions for return of property are to be exercised sparingly and not … Continue reading