Defendant\u2019s alleged consent at the I-19 checkpoint in Arizona was involuntary. She was on a bus that was stopped, she was seized, she could not leave the secondary checkpoint, the CBP agent followed her, \u201cwhen Ms. Rodriguez hesitated or became non-compliant, Agent Salcido proceeded and Ms. Rodriguez was threatened with use of a taser.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153797 (D. Ariz. Sep. 10, 2018).<\/p>\n
\u201cRule 41(g) is a means of recovering seized property, not forfeited property. United States v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 2004). Instead, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 983(e), is the exclusive mechanism to set aside declarations of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute.\u201d United States v. Dotstry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154625 (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s alleged consent at the I-19 checkpoint in Arizona was involuntary. She was on a bus that was stopped, she was seized, she could not leave the secondary checkpoint, the CBP agent followed her, \u201cwhen Ms. Rodriguez hesitated or became … Continue reading