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 using it except if defendant opens it up. United States v. Nocito, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7798 (3d Cir. Apr. 3, 2023).

The lack of a usable quantity of marijuana in a car didn’t make the officer unbelievable that he could smell marijuana from the car. Other drugs were found in the search. United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57535 (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2023).*

Confiscation of court records of other persons in plaintiff’s prison cell did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It was reasonable for the prison to limit access to that information. Nolon v. Owens, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57598 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2023).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the inventory search here that was reasonable. State v. Trego, 2023-Ohio-1114, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1081 (4th Dist. Mar. 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.