{"id":5252,"date":"2011-03-06T10:38:18","date_gmt":"2011-03-07T00:50:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-03-06T10:38:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5252","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Pa.: Seizure of third-party’s property justifies hearing under Rule 41(g)"},"content":{"rendered":"

A third-party has Rule 41<\/a> standing to at least get a hearing on seizure of his property when he is not a target of a criminal investigation. United States v. Begolly, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20755 (W.D. Pa. March 2, 2011):<\/p>\n

We disagree that such a jurisdictional prerequisite exists before we can consider the merits of Mr. Begolly\u2019s Motion. Rather, we find that where, as here, we have a pre-indictment seizure of property of a third party not under investigation, we must weigh the interests of the government in holding the property against the owner\u2019s rights to use the property,\u201d i.e. is the retention of Mr. Begolly\u2019s property reasonable considering all circumstances. See United States v. Premises Known as 608 Taylor Avenue, Apartment 302, Pittsburgh, Pa.<\/a>, 584 F.2d 1297, 1302 and 1304 (3d Cir. 1978). See also Chaim v. United States<\/a>, 692 F.Supp.2d 461, 467 (D.N.J. 2010) (when Rule 41(g)<\/a> motion is filed and there is no pending criminal proceedings against either the movant or the property, then the standard is that set forth in 608 Taylor Ave<\/em>: whether the government\u2019s continued retention of the property is reasonable under all the circumstances.); Committee Note to 1989 Amendment to Rule 41 (\u201cNo standard is set forth in the rule to govern the determination of whether property should be returned to a person aggrieved either by an unlawful seizure or by deprivation of the property. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures as well as unreasonable searches, United States v. Place<\/a>, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983), and reasonableness under all of the circumstances must be the test when a person seeks to obtain the return of property. If the United States has a need for the property in an investigation or prosecution, its retention of the property generally is reasonable. But, if the United States\u2019 legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is returned, continued retention of the property would become unreasonable.\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-5252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5252","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=5252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}