Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01713/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Blade
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1713

___________

Ronnie Blade, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 23, 2007

Filed: November 30, 2007

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Ronnie Blade appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for the return of seized property. We

remand for further proceedings.

Blade’s Rule 41(g) motion alleged that, at the time of his arrest, nine specific

items of personal property were unlawfully seized without notice, and they have never

been returned to him. The government did not respond to Blade’s motion, and the

district court summarily denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Appellate Case: 07-1713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377636
-2-

We conclude that Blade’s Rule 41(g) motion presented factual issues related to

whether Blade was entitled to the return of his property. Particularly in light of the

lack of response from the government, these issues could not be resolved without an

evidentiary hearing, and the district court erred in summarily denying Blade’s motion.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (person aggrieved by deprivation of property may move

for return of property and court “must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary

to decide the motion”); United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2000)

(affirming in part because district court properly concluded without receiving

evidence that convicted felon was not entitled to return of firearms and reversing in

part because court failed to provide evidentiary hearing on issue of status of other

property as contraband); United States v. Burton, 167 F.3d 410, 410-11 (8th Cir.

1999) (reversing where district court improperly denied Rule 41(e) (now 41(g))

motion without receiving evidence to determine who had custody of subject property);

see also United States v. Hall, 269 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2001) (if court in Rule

41(e) (now 41(g)) proceeding learns government no longer possesses subject property,

court should give movant chance to assert alternative claim for damages). 

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings.

______________________

Appellate Case: 07-1713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377636