Category Archives: Rule 41(g) / Return of property

N.D.Ga.: Court refuses to vacate Rule 41(g) evidentiary hearing on return of Fulton County ballots

In the Fulton County ballot seizure case, the court refuses to vacate its order for a Rule 41(g) hearing on return of the records. Pitts v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74137 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2026):

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Court refuses to vacate Rule 41(g) evidentiary hearing on return of Fulton County ballots

CA8: Password note near domestic partner’s computer was RS def on probation used that computer, too

Passwords near a computer seen in a probation search around defendant’s domestic partner’s computer was reasonable suspicion defendant could have too. United States v. Berry, 24-2337 (8th Cir. April 3, 2026).* Mandamus doesn’t lie to remedy petitioner’s constitutional claims. He … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA8: Password note near domestic partner’s computer was RS def on probation used that computer, too

CA6: PO’s information that def was probably at a house was enough to arrest him there on a warrant

Information from his PO justified defendant’s arrest on a warrant at his brother’s place. He’d been arrested there before, and he was seen there. Officers did not need to exclude other possible places he should have been first. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA6: PO’s information that def was probably at a house was enough to arrest him there on a warrant

E.D.Cal.: Excessive damage in executing writ of possession can state claim

Excessive damage in executing a writ of possession can state a Fourth Amendment claim. Dayton v. Fairfield Mobile Home, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41228 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026). Vehicle finance company’s Fourth Amendment claim against the village’s retention of … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Excessive damage in executing writ of possession can state claim

techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records

Begging the question: What consequences are there for a Franks violation, besides a Franks hearing and maybe just suppression of evidence? Or here, return of the evidence? Rebuke? Prosecution for false statement or worse? See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (false … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records

CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant

CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant by Tierney Sneed (“Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, accused the Justice Department of making “serious” omissions in the application the FBI filed to obtain … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant

N.D.Iowa: Motion for return of property after final administrative seizure denied

Defendant’s motion for return of seized cash comes after administrative forfeiture became final. Denied. United States v. Mims, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27957 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 11, 2026).* Defendant didn’t seek resolution of his motion to suppress, so the trial … Continue reading

Posted in Forfeiture, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Waiver | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Motion for return of property after final administrative seizure denied

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Nexus, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Evidence seized by state not taken or used by feds not subject to Rule 41(g)

D.D.C.: Comey attorney-computer search redux

In the Comey attorney-client privileged search, the government was ordered to return the evidence, not destroy it. Another alternative is to deposit it with the court subject to another search warrant, if the government can get one. Richman v. United … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Comey attorney-computer search redux

D.D.C.: Electronic evidence seized in one investigation of Comey cannot be searched years later for evidence in another; return ordered under Rule 41(g)

When the government retained electronic evidence obtained from a lawyer under a warrant, concluded the investigation, and then, years later, searched the information again in a different investigation, the remedy here was order of immediate return to the lawyer and … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overbreadth, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Electronic evidence seized in one investigation of Comey cannot be searched years later for evidence in another; return ordered under Rule 41(g)

TX12: When passenger was ordered out of car and “couldn’t open” door, officer could

During a traffic stop, an object hanging inside the passenger door concerned the officer. The passenger claimed the door wouldn’t open from inside, so it was reasonable for the officer to open the door when ordering the passenger out. Penney … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Search | Comments Off on TX12: When passenger was ordered out of car and “couldn’t open” door, officer could

D.D.C.: Warrantless computer search ordered stopped

An attorney whose computer was seized and copied gets a TRO against further searches on a prima facie showing of its warrantless search. Richman v. United States, Civil Misc. Action No. 25-0170 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2025):

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Warrantless computer search ordered stopped

MI: PC for SW completely lacking, so no GFE

“As noted by dissenting Judge Garrett, the search-warrant affidavit failed to connect the firearms and firearm-related items listed in the search warrant with the suspected criminal activity. Therefore, there was not probable cause to believe ‘that contraband or evidence of … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on MI: PC for SW completely lacking, so no GFE

S.D.N.Y.: Failure to plead how 4A was violated denies return of laptop

The motion for return of the target’s laptop for violating the Fourth Amendment is denied because he doesn’t plead how the Fourth Amendment was violated. Commodities Future Trading Commission v. Alexandre, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160456 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2025). … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Failure to plead how 4A was violated denies return of laptop

E.D.Tex.: Return of property under Rule 41(g) requires more than a seizure that “might be” unreasonable

The fact property was held after seizure under a search warrant that might be invalid isn’t enough to order equitable return of property under Rule 41(g). Bingli Lin v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142181 (E.D. Tex. June 30, … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Tex.: Return of property under Rule 41(g) requires more than a seizure that “might be” unreasonable

D.Alaska: Objection to only part of USMJ’s R&R is waiver of rest

Objection to the USMJ’s probable cause finding but not application of the good faith exception is waiver on the latter. United States v. Baldwin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106406 (D. Alaska June 4, 2025). The legality of the protective sweep … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Protective sweep, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Objection to only part of USMJ’s R&R is waiver of rest

TX5: Warrantless removal of GSR was reasonable

Warrantless swabbing for GSR from defendant’s hands was reasonable because of exigency because it could likely be immediately lost. Argumedo v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3375 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 16, 2025). Defendant’s Franks claim is more like … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on TX5: Warrantless removal of GSR was reasonable

E.D.Mo.: Carpenter does not protect ISP information

Carpenter creates no protection for ISP subscriber information. No Due Process rights were violated though a § 1509 summons. United States v. Meyrand, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84060 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2025).* This court declined to abandon the automobile … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Issue preclusion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Surveillance technology, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Carpenter does not protect ISP information

CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

The Superior Court of San Francisco imposes electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. Because it’s essentially a contract between the defendant and court, it’s consent to EM for release. It also does not violate state separation of powers. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Inventory, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

D.Conn.: Federal court won’t order return of phone still subject to state court case

In a motion for return of property, a state search warrant was issued for defendant’s phone and the warrant authorized a federal forensic examination of the phone. The need for the phone is over in federal court, but not state … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Federal court won’t order return of phone still subject to state court case