CA3: A predicate to a 41(g) motion to return property is a prior request

“To the extent Baer complains of the Government’s failure to return his devices, his argument fails because he never sought their return. Defendants who never seek the return of the property cannot argue that delay violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 487 (1985)).” On his Franks issue, the minor inaccuracies in the affidavit don’t undermine the probable cause showing. United States v. Baer, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1486 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2021).

Qualified immunity: “Plaintiffs do not identify a sufficiently analogous case that would have put Loya-Chhabra and Vance on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional. Specifically, Plaintiffs cite no cases (from the Supreme Court or otherwise) that address an analogous situation to the one here where both parents were arrested for serious crimes and the social workers declined to leave the two very young children (ages two and four) in the custody of non-parental relatives.” Reyna v. County of L.A., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1506 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.