OH11: Person seeking return of property seized need not provide actual evidence in the petition

In a petition for return of property seized from a business, it was only required to show a possessory interest and likelihood of return. An evidentiary quality response isn’t required. State v. Allen, 2023-Ohio-4032, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 3869 (11th Dist. Nov. 6, 2023).

In a white collar case, the government seized cell phones during a search, and then it applied for warrants. Relying on common sense that cell phones are backed up and then synced when replaced, the government was able to show probable cause and the information was not stale as to other cell phones maybe that could not be shown to be associated with the crime. “In short, given the qualities of the electronic evidence sought and the long-term and ongoing nature of criminal conduct at issue, the passage of time as to some of the information known to Agent Williams did not render the facts supporting probable cause stale.” United States v. Watson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199071 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2023).*

Based on investigation, “the Court finds that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendants’ vehicle and probable cause to arrest Defendants for financial exploitation of an elder.” Seizure of a cell phone for a later warrant was also reasonable. United States v. Brown, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198843 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197890 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.