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

FL5: Error to deny without a hearing a facially sufficient motion for return of property

Defendant’s motion for return of property was facially sufficient for a hearing, and the circuit court erred in denying it without a hearing. Peterson v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 8861 (Fla. 5th DCA June 22, 2018). Defense counsel wasn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on FL5: Error to deny without a hearing a facially sufficient motion for return of property

D.S.C.: One innocently driving a stolen vehicle generally doesn’t have standing in it, but he has to show his innocent status

One innocently driving a stolen vehicle generally doesn’t have standing in it. If, however, he innocently buys a stolen vehicle and then he’s stopped in it, it’s his burden to show that he was an innocent purchaser to acquire standing. … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on D.S.C.: One innocently driving a stolen vehicle generally doesn’t have standing in it, but he has to show his innocent status

NY3: No statutory or const’l requirement issuing magistrate’s name be printed on SW papers

Nothing requires the issuing magistrate’s name be printed on the search warrant papers, the affidavit or warrant. People v. Douglas, 2018 NY Slip Op 04388, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360 (3d Dept. June 14, 2018). A search warrant was … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NY3: No statutory or const’l requirement issuing magistrate’s name be printed on SW papers

Ct.Claims: Motion to dismiss denied: “plaintiffs sufficiently allege actions which are inconsistent with the exercise of police power”

Plaintiffs alleged a Fifth Amendment taking because the government took their truck to do a drug operation. The claim survives a motion to dismiss. “Because plaintiffs do not challenge the legality of the government’s action, we deny the jurisdictional challenge. … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Ct.Claims: Motion to dismiss denied: “plaintiffs sufficiently allege actions which are inconsistent with the exercise of police power”

GA: Where no violation of clear statute, no Heien reasonable mistake of law defense for state

Defendant did not violate the traffic statute that the officer stopped him for. Therefore, Heien’s reasonable mistake of law and good faith doesn’t apply. Moreover, there is no good faith exception in Georgia. Harris v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on GA: Where no violation of clear statute, no Heien reasonable mistake of law defense for state

D.Idaho: Movant failed to show govt had “callous regard” of rights for early return of property seized

The DEA seized unapproved pain relief products by a search warrant, and the company from which it was seized moved for return of the property. The court finds company hasn’t satisfied the requirements for equitable jurisdiction for return of property … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Movant failed to show govt had “callous regard” of rights for early return of property seized

D.Conn.: 2255 isn’t the remedy for return of property; it’s Rule 41(g)

Defense counsel isn’t ineffective for not appealing a conviction when the only real remedy he seeks is for return of property which would be by a Rule 41(g) motion which hasn’t been filed. Dismissed without prejudice. Green v. United States, … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Conn.: 2255 isn’t the remedy for return of property; it’s Rule 41(g)

D.Kan.: FPD has standing to join in Rule 41(g) litigation to recover illegally recorded attorney jail calls and meetings

The Federal Public Defender has standing to participate in Rule 41(g) litigation to recover the recordings of attorney-client meetings and telephone calls that were recorded at a private prison used as a federal detention center. The government’s concerns over standing … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Kan.: FPD has standing to join in Rule 41(g) litigation to recover illegally recorded attorney jail calls and meetings

Guam: If no criminal case pending, motion for return of property can be treated as a new civil action

If a criminal case is not pending, a motion for return of property is treated as a new civil action, and should proceed accordingly (following state and federal cases, most recently Pristine Pre-Owned Auto, Inc. v. Courrier, 236 W. Va. … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on Guam: If no criminal case pending, motion for return of property can be treated as a new civil action

D.Me.: SW for jail cell produced evidence; USAO ordered to return some stuff, but sheriff not because USAO can’t be ordered to get it from them

There was a search warrant for personal papers in a jail, and some came into the possession of the USAO but two pages did not. They were needed for litigation. The USAO is ordered to return the copies it has, … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Me.: SW for jail cell produced evidence; USAO ordered to return some stuff, but sheriff not because USAO can’t be ordered to get it from them

E.D.Mich.: Rule 41(g) motion denied for failure to show entitlement to seized property

For Rule 41(g) motion to return property: “Flemming has failed to prove that he is a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.’ In his motion, Flemming does not challenge the legality of the search and seizure in question. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Rule 41(g) motion denied for failure to show entitlement to seized property

M.D.La.: Bench warrant surfacing for def made pat down legal by inevitable discovery even if frisk invalid

Officers responded to a wellness check and found two people passed out in a car. One couldn’t be roused, but defendant could and he was removed from the car and patted down for officer safety. The patdown was reasonable. Even … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Bench warrant surfacing for def made pat down legal by inevitable discovery even if frisk invalid

M.D.Tenn.: Laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property

The doctrine of laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property. The seizure of defendant’s property was 2003. Aside from other difficulties (like forfeiture), defendant just waited too long. United States v. Kimball, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136952 … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Laches applies to Rule 41(g) motions for return of property

M.D.Fla.: Def failed to show equitable right to return of property under 41(g) while he’s in jail

Defendant failed to make a showing for equitable relief for return of property under Rule 41(g) while he’s in jail. United States v. Rehaif, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61019 (M.D. Fla. April 4, 2017):

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Def failed to show equitable right to return of property under 41(g) while he’s in jail

GA: Statute on return of property must be followed; can’t apply to court first

In a juvenile proceeding, recovery of the juvenile’s cell phone required following a statutory procedure which wasn’t. One can’t just apply to the court first. The further claim that retention of the phone violated the Fourth Amendment wasn’t raised below … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on GA: Statute on return of property must be followed; can’t apply to court first

NE: Return of property not required until after post-conviction is concluded

As long as post-conviction proceedings or a federal prosecution are possible, the state has the ability to keep the evidence without return to the defendant. The state statute says “may” not shall. State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304, 2017 Neb. … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NE: Return of property not required until after post-conviction is concluded

W.D.Ark.: Def counsel has apparent authority to receive property returned after arrest

In a civil action for return of property: “In the specific context of the disposition of property, district courts have found that the government acts appropriately when it disposes of property in a manner consistent with actions or representations made … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Def counsel has apparent authority to receive property returned after arrest

D.Nev.: Govt responds it won’t use evidence seized at trial so motion for return of property or to suppress granted

The government seized defendant’s iPad and but didn’t search it because they didn’t have a password. Finally, they decided not to attempt to use it as evidence, so the motion for return of property is granted. The government didn’t intend … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Govt responds it won’t use evidence seized at trial so motion for return of property or to suppress granted

OH2: Property can’t be returned when it still has evidentiary value

“There was little evidence regarding the floppy disks, CDs, and Rolodex, but the burden was on Webber to demonstrate that she was entitled to their return. Upon review of the record, the evidence before the trial court supported a conclusion … Continue reading

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH2: Property can’t be returned when it still has evidentiary value

E.D.Cal.: No right to return of iPad and iPhone as long as they have evidentiary value, including through appeal

Defendant does not have a right to return of seized property under Rule 41(g) as long as there is potential evidentiary value, including through appeal. Defendant does not claim that his iPad and iPhone weren’t illegally seized to begin with; … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: No right to return of iPad and iPhone as long as they have evidentiary value, including through appeal