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

NV: A-C privilege reason for return of documents

Attorney-client privilege is reason for return of documents under F.R.Crim.P. 41(g), and Nevada recognizes that, too, regardless of whether there is an open investigation. In re Search Warrants Regarding Seizure of Documents, 2023 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 131 (Apr. 7, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Hot pursuit, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NV: A-C privilege reason for return of documents

CA3: Rule 41(g) order not appealable when property involved in criminal process

Denial of petitioner’s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property was not appealable when the property is tied up in the criminal process. It is not an exclusionary rule, and it remains available even if the government doesn’t plan on … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA3: Rule 41(g) order not appealable when property involved in criminal process

OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found

In Oregon, “For searches of electronic devices, a warrant is specific enough to satisfy the particularity requirement if it ‘describe[s], with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, what investigating officers believe will be found’ on the device, … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found

D.Idaho: Def can’t get access to his cell phone yet because govt has yet to search it because it’s password protected

Defendant wants return of his cell phone because he asserts, without specifying, that there is exculpatory evidence on it. The government responds that it hasn’t opened the phone yet because it is password protected. The government wants the password to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Def can’t get access to his cell phone yet because govt has yet to search it because it’s password protected

M.D.Ala.: Controlled buy 4 days earlier leading to SW comes in under 404(b)

Defendant’s motion in limine about a controlled buy four days before the warrant is denied. It comes in under 404(b). United States v. Neal, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37649 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2023). “As already discussed at the motion … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Controlled buy 4 days earlier leading to SW comes in under 404(b)

CA6: Govt completely failed to show nexus or PC thus no GFE

The affidavits supporting the records warrant for defendant’s home did not establish nexus between his alleged drug activity, drug records, and his address. Also, the affidavit did not allege that defendant dealt drugs from the house or that he even … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Nexus, Protective sweep, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA6: Govt completely failed to show nexus or PC thus no GFE

OR: Computer hard drive with contraband could be destroyed with guilty plea

By defendant’s plea to a sex and child porn offense, the state could destroy the computer hard drives where the contraband was found. The seizure was in 2003, and the trial was 2017. State v. Forker, 323 Or. App. 323 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OR: Computer hard drive with contraband could be destroyed with guilty plea

CA3: Delaware “hit and hold” practice for entries not decided because of consent

The court declines to decide the officers’ “hit and hold” entries where they entered without a warrant but under alleged exigency, secured the premises, and then sought a search warrant. Because there was independent justification for the warrantless search after … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Independent source, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA3: Delaware “hit and hold” practice for entries not decided because of consent

CA11: No jurisdiction to enjoin investigation after execution of SW

A District Court has no anomalous jurisdiction to bar the government from using evidence seized with a search warrant in an investigation. There are other remedies at the appropriate time. Trump v. United States. 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33296 (11th … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA11: No jurisdiction to enjoin investigation after execution of SW

D.Minn.: Court won’t enjoin investigation after SW on ptf’s cell phone

Plaintiff can’t get access to search warrant papers yet because of an ongoing investigation. Second, the court won’t enjoin the use of the information from his seized telephone or order its return because of the ongoing investigation. Lindell v. United … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Court won’t enjoin investigation after SW on ptf’s cell phone

The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says

The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says (“The committee said constitutional provisions, and Eastman’s own late filing, should end his appeal.”)

Posted in E-mail, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says

D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

An action for return of property under Rule 41(g) is not a motion to suppress and does not invoke any exclusionary rule. Eastman v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188438 (D.N.M. Oct. 14, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

TX1: Order to return cell phone in murder investigation was without jurisdiction

The trial court’s order ordering return of a cell phone seized in a murder investigation was void and reversed. “‘Suppression of evidence and return of property are not the same relief.’” Defendant had not yet been indicted, so the trial … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on TX1: Order to return cell phone in murder investigation was without jurisdiction

CA11: Declaratory judgment suit over search properly dismissed as interfering with criminal process

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment about a search issue underlying a criminal investigation. The district court dismissed because there was a remedy in the investigation, if it gets that far. Affirmed. Hawk Innovative Tech, LLC v. United States, 2022 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA11: Declaratory judgment suit over search properly dismissed as interfering with criminal process

D.V.I.: Govt couldn’t prove helicopter flyover was 1000′ or more; suppressed

The government flew a helicopter over defendant’s property to photograph a suspected marijuana grow. It could not provide testimony that the helicopter was flown at 1000′ or above in navigable air space. Defendant had a subjected expectation of privacy against … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Govt couldn’t prove helicopter flyover was 1000′ or more; suppressed

CA3: Unnecessarily keeping guns of innocent parents for 8 years violated 4A, 5A, and 2A

Police seized 46 firearms from a murderer’s parents that had nothing to do with his crimes and they were never used in any proceeding. Eight years later after the son’s death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal and habeas, the … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA3: Unnecessarily keeping guns of innocent parents for 8 years violated 4A, 5A, and 2A

DDC: Delay in return of seized cell phone not necessarily unreasonable; Rule 41(g) provides procedural due process

DC Metro police seized numerous cell phones from BLM protestors, and they sued to recover them. The DC police policy wasn’t followed, but only by negligence, and that doesn’t state a claim against it. Rule 41(g) applies despite lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Cell phones, Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on DDC: Delay in return of seized cell phone not necessarily unreasonable; Rule 41(g) provides procedural due process

CA11: § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state 4A claim

Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state a Fourth Amendment claim. Lyons v. City of Abbeville, Ala., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24110 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022). Defendant does not get return of … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Administrative search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Waiver | Comments Off on CA11: § 1983 suit that only claimed violations of state law did not state 4A claim

N.D.W.Va.: A SW for those suspected of sending in drug-laced fake legal papers

For defense lawyers wondering about the increase in searches of legal mail, this case involved a search warrant of the house of someone suspected to sending in drug laced fake legal papers into federal prisons. Barker v. United States, 2022 … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: A SW for those suspected of sending in drug-laced fake legal papers

CA5: An intimidating police presence is not a seizure

An intimidating police presence is not a seizure. Tyson v. Cty. of Sabine, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 20902 (5th Cir. July 28, 2022). Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not taking depositions in his criminal case to develop his search … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on CA5: An intimidating police presence is not a seizure