CA11: Denial of 41(g) motion for return of property not appealable while case or investigation is going on

Denial of a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property lacks jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal when there’s a pending criminal investigation. Burke v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590 (11th Cir. May 24, 2024).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that Streit’s initial interaction with Robinson was consensual. To be sure, there were common factors indicative of a seizure present here: Robinson was aware of the police presence nearby, he could see Streit’s duty weapon in its holster and her tactical vest identifying her as a sheriff’s deputy, and she confirmed her status by announcing ‘Sheriff’s Office.’ On balance, however, the circumstances of the encounter reveal that a reasonable person in Robinson’s shoes would have believed he was free to leave. Streit circled in front of Robinson to address him face-to-face, but this did not prevent him from turning on his heel or simply stepping into the grass on either side of the sidewalk to pass by her. … She was the only officer present at the time, and she did not touch Robinson until he gave her permission to disarm him. Streit did not yell, she did not draw her gun, and she did not tell Robinson he could not leave. Robinson is an adult, there is no evidence he could not understand Streit’s questions, and their initial encounter lasted only long enough for her to find out that he was armed.” United States v. Robinson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92587 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.