A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t16,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. N o. 04- 7099 E DDI E KAY C OP E M AN,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA *

( D. C. NO . CR - 0 3 - 0 9 - 0 1 - W H) E ddi e K ayC opeman, pr o s e. G or don B . C eci l , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , ( Shel don J . Sper l i ng, U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e y , an d R y a n M . R o b e rts, A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , w ith h im on t he br i ef) , M us kogee, O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , HA RTZ and TY M KOVI CH , C irc u it Judg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.R ul e 41 w as amended i n 2002 as partof the gene r al r es ty l i ng of the 1 F e d e ra l R u les o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re . W h a t w a s fo rm e rlyR u le 4 1 (e ) is n o w R u le 41 (g) , w i t h o nlysty l i st i c chan ges. -2- E ddi e K ayC opeman w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor t he East ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma on se ven count s of an i ndi ctm ent , al l i nvol vi ng d ru g a n d fir e a rm s o ffe n s e s . H is c o n v ic tio n s h a v e b e e n u p h e ld o n a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. C opem an , N o s. 0 4 -7 0 0 3 & 0 4 -7 0 0 4 , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 7 9 3 2 5 8 (1 0 th C ir . , Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 ). In th is r elated ap p ea l he c h all en g es th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of hi s pos t convi ct i on m ot i on under Fed. R . C r i m . P. 41( g) forr etur n of 1 cert ai n pr oper t ys ei zed byO kl ahoma l aw - enfor cementoffi cer s dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on t hatl ed t o t he fe der al char ges agai ns thi m . W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. R ule 41(g) pr ov i des: (g ) M o ti o n to R e tu r n P r o p e r ty . A per s on aggr i eved byan unl aw ful s ear ch and s ei zur e of pr opertyorbyt he depr i vat i on of pr opert ym aym ove fort he pr operty ’ s r etur n. T he mot i on m us tbe fi l ed in the d i stri ctw here the p ropertyw as sei zed. Th e cou rtm ust re c e iv e e v id e n c e o n a n yfa c tu a l is s u e n e c e s s a ry to d e c id e th e m o tio n . I f i tgr ant s t he mot i on, t he courtm us tr eturn the pr opertyt o the m o v a n t, bu t m a yim p o se re a so n a b le c o n d iti o n s to p ro tec t ac c e ss to th e p ro p e rt ya n d its u s e in la te r p ro c e e d in g s . “R ul e 41( [g] ) i s an equi t abl e r emedy , . . . avai l abl e t o [the movant ] onl yi f he c an s how i r r epar abl e harm and an i nadequa t e r emedyatl aw . ” C l ym or e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 6 4 F . 3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).M r . C opeman sugge s t s t hats om e s ei zed pr opertyhas notbeen the s ubj ect 2 of s t at e j udi ci al - for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs , buthe fa i l s t o i dent i fys peci fi cal l yeven o n e ite m . -3- A s c o n c e d e d b y M r. C o p e m a n , th e p ro p e rty in q u e stio n w a s se ize d b ysta te la w -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs . N e v e rt h e le s s , t her e ar e s om e l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch R ul e 41( [g] ) can be us ed as a vehi cl e t o pet i t i on fort he r eturn of pr opertys ei zed by s t at e author i t i es . T hos e ci r cumst ance s i ncl ude ac tual fede r al pos s es s i on of the pr oper t yfor fei t ed byt he s t at e, cons truct i ve fe der al pos s es s i on w her e the pr oper tyw as cons i der ed evi dence i n the fe der al p ro se c u tio n , o r in sta n c e s w h e re p ro p e rtyw a s s e ize d b ysta te o fficia ls a c t i n g a tt h e d i r e c t i o n o f fe d e r a l a u th o r i t i e s i n a n a g e n c y c a p a c i ty. Id . I ti s notcont es t ed thatt he pr opertyati s s ue has been c ont i nuous l yi n the p h y sic a l cu sto d yo f

th e sta te a n d m o st, if n o t all, o f it w a s th e su bjec t o f

sta te j udi ci al - for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs w hen M r . C opeman fi l ed hi s R ul e 41( g) m ot i on. 2 ( N ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t he pr es ents t atus of thos e pr ocee di ngs . ) N or does M r . C opeman sugge s tt hatanyof the pr opertyhe s eeks w as evercons i der ed pot ent i al evi dence forhi s fede r al pr os ecut i on. H e ar gued bel ow , how ever , t hat t he U nit ed S t at es i s i n “co nst ruct i ve p ossess i on ” of the prope rty“beca use De fe n d a n t ’ s c a s e wa s c l e a r l yp r o s e c u t e d b yt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s , a n d t h e r e a r e ‘ NO’ s ta te c h a rg e s fa ile d [ s ic ] a g a in s t D e fe n d a n t.” S u p p . R . D o c . 1 3 9 a t 1 . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the mot i on w i th pr ej udi ce, rul i ng that“1) t he U n ited S tate s is n o t cu rre n tlyin a c tu a l o r c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n o f sa id pr oper t y , and 2) t he defendanthas an ade quat e r emedyatl aw i n the court s of the-4-

St at e of O kl ahoma. ” Id . D o c. 1 5 6 at 2 . “G en era ll y , w e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of a Rul e 41( [g] ) m ot i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R odrigu ez-A gu i rre , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e a g re e w ith b o th g ro u n d s o f

th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n , an d h o ld th a t itd id n o t ab u se its d i s c r e t i o n . Al t h o u g h e i t h e rg r o u n d wo u l d s u ffi c e fo rd e n i a l o f t h e mo t i o n , we w ill a d d re s s b o th . Fi r s t , as w e s ai d i n C l ym ore , p r o p e r tys e i z e d a n d h e l d b ys t a t e l a wenfor cementoffi cer s i s noti n t he cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es for R ul e 41( g) purpos es unl es s i ti s bei ng hel d forpot ent i al us e as evi dence i n a fe d e ra l p ro se c u tio n . 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 5 7 1 ; se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . So lis , 108 F. 3d 722, 723 ( 7t h C i r . 1997) ( “N ordoes t he r ecor d aff i r m at i vel yes t abl i s h thatt he v e h icle w a s e v e r c o n sid e re d e v id e n c e in th e fe d e ra l p ro se c u tio n ; th e re fo re , ev e n if w e w er e t o acc eptt he conc eptof cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, . . . t her e w oul d be no b a sis fo r re lief.”). A b se n t su c h p o ten tial u se , the U n ited S tate s h a s n o in ter e st in th e p ro p e rt y . M r. C o p e m a n c ites tw o d istric t-c o u rt o p in io n s to su p p o rt h is c laim th a t a s t at e’ s deci s i on t o defe rpr os ecut i on t o the U ni t ed St at es confe r s cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of al l pr oper t ys ei zed dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on. I n Uni t ed Stat es v. Story , 170 F. Supp. 2d 863, 865 ( D . M i nn. 2001) , t he pr opertyi n ques t i on w as se ize d a n d h e ld b ysta te a u th o rities , b u t th e in v e stig a tio n led to a g u iltyp lea in fede r al court . C i t i ng C l ym ore , the c o u rt sa id th a t R u le 4 1 (g ) “ c a n b e u se d to-5-

for ce the fe der al governm entt o r etur n i t ems s ei zed bys t at e off i ci al s ” w hen “the U ni t ed St at es actual l ypos s es s es the pr opertyorcons truct i vel ypos s es s es the pr oper t yby : ( 1) us i ng t he pr opertyas evi dence i n the fe der al pr os ecut i on; or( 2) w her e the fe der al governm entdi r ect ed s t at e off i ci al s t o s ei ze the pr opertyi n the fi r s tpl ace . ” Id . at 866. Y ett hen, w i thoutexpl anat i on, t he courtw entbey ond C l ym ore i n concl udi ng t hat , “bec aus e thes e i t ems w er e s ei zed a s partof an i nves t i gat i on t hatr es ul t ed i n St ory ’ s fede r al pr os ecut i on, t he U ni t ed St at es has cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on overt he i t ems. ” Id . at 8 6 7 . T o th e e x ten t th a t Story hol ds t hatfede r al pr os ecut i on al one confer s on the fe der al governm ent cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of ea ch i t em of prope r tys ei zed bya s t at e dur i ng an i nves t i gat i on, r egar dl es s of w hethert he i t em i s bei ng hel d forfede r al author i t i es as pot ent i al evi dence , i tconfl i ct s w i th C l ym ore a n d w e reje c t it. W e si m i l arl yl i m i tou r approval of the seco nd case M r. C op em an cit es, Un itedS ta tes v . Fa b e la -G a rc ia , 753 F. Supp. 326 ( D . U t ah 1989) , an opi ni on t hat predat es C l

ym ore . I n Fa b e la -G a rc ia t he pr opertyi n ques t i on w as s ei zed byt he s t at e and r emai ned i n s t at e pos s es s i on. B utthe courtrul ed thati thad j ur i s di ct i on on t he gr ound t hatt he fe der al governm enthad “c ons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the pr oper t y ” bec aus e the s t at e had “ defe rr ed t o the U ni t ed St at es i n a llas pect s of the pr os ecut i on. ” Id . at 32 8 . A s an alt ern ati v e g rou n d fo r j u ri sd ict ion , the c o u rt n o ted its prior ruli n g that p rop ertyh ad b ee n seize d il lega ll y , an d said that a c o u rt m us tbe abl e “t o vi ndi cat e and e nfor ce the cons equenc es of i t s ow n or der . ” Id . at-6-

329. O f cour s e, ourl at erdeci s i on i n C l ym ore dep ri ves t he rul i ng on the fir st g ro u n d o f

a n ya u th o rityin th is c irc u it t o th e e x ten t th a t Fa b e la -G a rc ia w as bas i ng co n stru cti v e p o sses sion o n fe d era l pro sec u ti o n alon e, ev en w h en the s tat e’s h o l d i n g o f

t h e p r o p e r t yh a d n o tb e e n fo rth e b e n e fi to f th a tp r o s e c u t i o n . We ex p ress n o v iew o n the c o u rt ’s alt ern ati v e h o lding . (A lth o u g h the d istri ct co u rt h a d ru led b e fo re M r. C o p e m a n ’s tria l th a t so m e item s m a yh a v e b e e n im p ro p e rly s ei zed, M r . C opeman di d notr ai s e thi s as a bas i s forhi s m ot i on s eeki ng r etur n of t he pr oper t y . ) A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e notper s uaded byM r . C opeman’ s r el i ance on Fa b e la -G a rc ia . W e ca n al s o r eadi l yaff i r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thatM r . C opeman has a n a d e q u a te r e m e d yin sta te c o u rt. W h e n “ sta te a v e n u e s o f re lief [ a re ] o p e n to [the movant ] , he ca nnots how an i nadequa t e r emedyatl aw . ” C l ym ore , 164 F. 3d a t 5 7 1 . S e e id . (R u le 41 (g) is no t ava il ab le t o ch all en g e state jud ici al-fo rfe itu re p ro c e e d in g s b e c a u se th e yp ro v id e a n a d e q u a te r e m e d y ); cf
. United S tates v. A kers , 2 1 5 F . 3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 1 0 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“T h is co u rth as h eld th at a fo rfe itu re pr ocee di ng pr ovi des a defendantw i th an ade quat e r emedyatl aw forr es ol vi ng a c laim to se ize d p ro p e rty .”); Fr a z e e v . I RS , 9 4 7 F .2 d 4 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (R u le 41( g) m ot i on pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed w hen fe der al j udi ci al - for fei tur e pr ocee di ng had been c om m ence d) . M r . C opeman cont ends t hatt he s t at e pr ocee di ngs do not p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te r e m e d yb e c a u se th e sta te c o u rts la c k ju risd ictio n . B u t h is onl yappar entar gum entw hyt he s t at e l acks j ur i s di ct i on i s t hatt he fe der al-7-

governm enthas cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the pr operty , an ar gum entw e have a lre a d y rejec ted . A lso , to th e e x ten t th a t M r. C o p e m a n c o n ten d s th a t sta te j udi ci al - for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs do notpr ovi de an a dequat e r emedybeca us e he ha s a great er burden o f persuasi on i n those proceed i ng s, w e do nott hi nk thats uch a d iffe re n c e , e v e n a s s u m in g th a t it tr u ly ex is ts , re n d e rs th e s ta te re m e d yin a d e q u a te . A re m e d ym a ys till b e a d e q u a te , e v e n if im p e rfe c t. See, e. g. , Wo m e n ’s E q u ity A ct i on League v. C avaz os , 9 0 6 F .2 d 7 4 2 , 7 5 1 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( G in s b u rg , R . B ., J.) (“ [ S ]itu a tio n -sp e c ific litig a tio n a ffo rd s a n a d e q u a te, e v e n if im p e rfe c t, re m e d y .”); Superi ntenden tof Ins. v. O chs (In r e F irs t C e n t. F in . C o r p .) , 377 F. 3d 209, 216 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] hatdoes notm ean i t s r emedyi s l egal l yi nadequa t e, s im p ly th a t it is im p e rfe c t.” ). W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .