Opinion ID: 2347993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Order to Return Seized Vehicles

Text: The State argues that it was error to order the seized property restored to the defendant. The argument is twofold. First, the State contends that since the defendant did not request the return of the seized property, the property should not have been returned. Secondly, the State urges us to apply our rationale for holding in State v. Cadigan, Me., 249 A.2d 750 (1969), that illegally seized contraband need not be returned. As distinguished from Cadigan, the property here seized was not contraband. We reject both of the State's arguments. The written inventory which accompanied the return of the warrant appears in note 3, supra. Rule 41(e), M.R.Crim.P., provides in part: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the Superior Court in the county in which the property was seized for the return of the property. The defendant moved pursuant to Rule 41(e), M.R.Crim.P., to suppress the evidence taken but did not request the return of the seized property. The Superior Court, after granting the defendant's motion to suppress, sua sponte ordered the property seized returned to the defendant. We can see no reason for preventing this action. The language of Rule 41(e), M.R.Crim.P., does not make a request for return of property mandatory nor was the property seized contraband. In State v. Cadigan, Me., 249 A.2d 750 (1969), we held that even though the defendants were aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, they were not entitled to an order for the return of the property seized because it was contraband, namely, illegal drugs and a quantity of marijuana. The mere possession of these items was unlawful and, therefore, the defendants had no right to their return. The property seized in the instant case was not contraband which was unlawful to possess. In fact, there is no evidence from which one could conclude that the property seized was stolen and, therefore, subject to lawful detention (Rule 41(e)) by the State. The Superior Court correctly ruled that it must be returned to the defendant. The entry is: State's appeal denied. Remanded to Superior Court for further proceeding. DELAHANTY, J., sat at argument and conference but did not otherwise participate. DUFRESNE, A. R. J., sat at oral argument as Chief Justice but retired prior to the preparation of the opinion. He has joined the opinion as Active Retired Justice.