Opinion ID: 689670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Return Property

Text: 3 Pursuant to a search warrant issued March 16, 1993, the government seized a large number of items belonging to Rotzinger and/or Rotzinger Enterprises as evidence. The items seized include computer equipment, software, tax forms, and other records. Although the criminal proceedings against Rotzinger in the district court ended in October 1993, the government retained possession of the seized property. In January 1994, Rotzinger filed a motion requesting the return of the property. The government agreed to return some of the items but argued that others were necessary to continue an ongoing investigation of Rotzinger's tax liability. In a minute order, the district court granted Rotzinger's motion with respect to the items the government agreed to return but denied it with respect to the other items. Rotzinger appeals the denial of his request to return the balance of the property. 4 First, Rotzinger argues that the property was unlawfully seized and demands its return. If the government makes an illegal seizure of property, the owner may bring an action to reclaim that which is wrongfully withheld. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 308, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1650 (1967), quoting Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 738, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1012 (1947). The record, however, contains no evidence from which we can tell whether the seizure was lawful. Nor is there evidence in the record that the legality of the search and seizure was determined at any point in the proceedings before the district court. Thus, we must remand for a determination of whether the search was lawful. 2 5 Moreover, even if the property was lawfully seized, the government may not retain it for an unreasonable length of time. Mr. Lucky Messenger Service, Inc. v. United States, 587 F.2d 15, 17 (7th Cir.1978); see also Interstate Cigar Co. v. United States, 928 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1991). As the owner of the property, 3 Rotzinger may bring a post-trial motion for its return. Although similar to a motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e), this cause of action is based on the general equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts. Mr. Lucky, 587 F.2d at 16-17. Once the property is no longer needed as evidence, [a] criminal defendant is presumed to have the right to the return of his property. United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1993). In order to retain possession of the seized items, the government must have a continuing interest in the property and must demonstrate a specific nexus between the seized property and its interest. Interstate Cigar, 928 F.2d at 224. This 'continuing interest' can include a criminal or tax investigation in progress. Sovereign News Co. v. United States, 690 F.2d 569, 577 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814, 104 S.Ct. 69 (1983). The government bears the burden of proving the specific nexus between its continuing interest and the seized property. Interstate Cigar, 958 F.2d at 224; see also Mills, 991 F.2d at 612; Virgin Islands v. Edwards, 903 F.2d 267, 274 (3d Cir.1990). 6 In the instant case, the government makes a blanket assertion that it needs the unreturned items for a tax investigation. There is no evidence in the record that the government has demonstrated a specific nexus between its investigation and any specific item retained. Thus, as in Mr. Lucky and Interstate Cigar, [w]e are unable to determine from the record before us whether the Government can reasonably justify its conduct. 4 Mr. Lucky, 587 F.2d at 17; see also Interstate Cigar, 928 F.2d at 224 (With the scant record before us, we are unable to determine if the Government can adequately defend its refusal to return the property.). Thus, we remand this claim to the district court, where the government must show a continuing interest in those items it wishes to retain and a specific nexus between the items and its interest. 5