In Re Search and Seizure, Al James Harper

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a narcotics suspect was entitled to file a Rule 41(e) motion for preindictment return of illegally seized property, but that the court would not invoke its equity jurisdiction to allow such a Rule 41(e
• district court did not abuse discretion in not exercising equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41 [ (g) ] after government instituted forfeiture proceeding
• Rule 41(e) motion, filed prior to administrative forfeiture proceedings invokes equity jurisdiction, but citizen's failure to contest the administrative proceeding in any way justifies district court's refusal to exercise that jurisdiction
• district court may decline to exercise existing equity jurisdiction when party has not acted equitably in subsequent administrative action
• “Although Harper had knowledge of the pending forfeiture proceeding, he allowed the matter to finalize without challenging the forfeiture or seeking a stay of the proceedings.”
• legality of seizure should be tested in forfeiture proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).