Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court\u2019s finding of voluntary consent has no support in the record and is clearly erroneous. People v. Schreiner<\/a>, 2021 IL App (1st) 190191, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 196 (Apr. 21, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant claimed that the warrant for property and a generally described person was insufficient. \u201cSpecifically, defendant pointed out that the search warrant described the subject as ‘\u201dWoo,\u201d an unknown male Black, 40-45 years of age, 5’05”-5’09”, 175lbs-200lbs, dark complexion, [m]edium build, black hair worn short, brown eyes,\u2019 and argued that the description \u2018could describe thousands of African-American males within the city of Chicago.\u2019\u201d Defendant was there, was Woo, and was in possession of marijuana when the raid occurred, and the latter is an independent basis for arrest. People v. Lance<\/a>, 2021 IL App (1st) 181665, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 194 (Apr. 21, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021). The … Continue reading