Opinion ID: 6495289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Return of Seized Property

Text: This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for return of seized property under Rule 41(g) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. De La Mata, 535 F.3d 1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2008). In considering a Rule 41(g) motion, this Court reviews questions of law de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 973 (11th Cir. 2005).
Rule 41(g) provides that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). A Rule 41(g) motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized, and “[t]he court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion.” Id. When the owner of property files a Rule 41(g) motion after the close of criminal proceedings, the motion is treated as a civil action in equity. United States v. Owen, 963 F.3d 1040, 1054–55 (11th Cir. 2020). To obtain relief, the property owner must show both that “he had a possessory interest in the property seized by the government” and that he has “clean hands” regarding the property. Howell, 425 F.3d at 974. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s Rule 41(g) motion because it did not clearly err when it found that there was no evidence to suggest the e-mails USCA11 Case: 21-11270 Date Filed: 06/27/2022 Page: 17 of 18 21-11270 Opinion of the Court 17 were obtained by an unlawful search and seizure, and likewise no evidence indicating that the Government deprived Defendant of the e-mails. Defendant did not raise an unlawful search and seizure argument. Further, Defendant acknowledged below that the Government had given his attorney a binder that included hard copies of the subject e-mails and that Defendant himself had given his mother a digital copy of the e-mails. In addition, it was within the district court’s discretion to find that Defendant did not have clean hands regarding the dhyphen@yahoo.com e-mail address, and that his Rule 41(g) motion fails for that reason as well. See Howell, 425 F.3d at 974 (“[I]n order for a district court to grant a Rule 41(g) motion, the owner of the property must have clean hands.”). The e-mail account at issue was used to identify Defendant and tie him to the charged offenses, and through it, Defendant was able to preserve copies of the threats he made. Because the e-mail account was used in the commission of Defendant’s crimes he is not entitled to the return of its contents under the district court’s equitable jurisdiction. See id. (concluding that the defendant, who had sold large quantities of cocaine and sought the return of firearms and government funds that a confidential informant had shown him, “c[a]me into court with extremely unclean hands” and therefore was not entitled to relief (quotation marks omitted)).