{"id":5204,"date":"2011-05-02T10:23:32","date_gmt":"2011-02-18T11:53:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-18T11:53:30","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5204","title":{"rendered":"CA3: Denial of Rule 41(g) motion that was really a suppression motion is not appealable"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Motion for return of property seized from offices and computers under Rule 41(g) was really a suppression motion, so denial of the motion was unappealable because it was not a final order. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/103527p.pdf\">In re Grand Jury<\/a>, 635 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Our decision in United States v. Furina, 707 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1983), is also instructive. There, during a grand jury investigation, federal agents obtained and executed warrants to search the appellants\u2019 residences; the agents seized various documents for presentation to the grand jury. Claiming that the search and seizure were invalid, the appellants filed a motion for return of the documents. The District Court denied the motion, and an appeal followed.<\/p>\n<p>We dismissed the appeal. In doing so, we found it \u201cvery clear\u201d that the appellants\u2019 motion sought the suppression of evidence, not simply the return of property. Id. at 84. Indeed, the motion had been filed pursuant to what is now Rule 41(g), and, at the time, granting such a motion automatically resulted in suppression. That the appellants\u2019 motion had sought not just the return of property but also the suppression of evidence was \u201cenough under Di Bella to require that &#8230; the appeal be dismissed.\u201d Furina, 707 F.2d at 84. We also stated that, \u201ceven though the appellants [we]re not under arrest or indictment,\u201d a prosecution against them was nevertheless in esse for purposes of Di Bella, because they were subjects of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Id. (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d at 806). We therefore held that the appellants did \u201cnot satisfy the [second] requirement of Di Bella that the motion [be] in no way tied to a criminal prosecution in esse against the[m].\u201d Id. at 84.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5204\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}