Court Opinion

ID: 9703322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:52:16.624268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:54.043710
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff was the claimed owner of a bulldozer and trailer allegedly stolen by one Timothy O’Brien. This equipment was impounded by law enforcement personnel at the direction of the Jackson County Prosecutor as evidence in connection with a felony murder charge against O’Brien. The people were not aware what defense, if any, would be asserted by the defendant. The people claimed that the implements must be held by it as evidence at least until the conclusion of the preliminary examination in district court.
The trial court herein determined on July 12, 1978, that absent a determination by the examining magistrate as to what disposition should be made of this evidence, the trial court had no authority to order the prosecutor to return the evidence until the completion of preliminary ex-*453animation, since the people had shown a temporary superior right to hold such items as evidence in a pending criminal proceeding. This appeal was filed on July 27, 1978. The preliminary examination was held on July 31 and August 1, 1978, and the defendant was arraigned in circuit court on August 8, 1978. The bulldozer and trailer were returned to the plaintiff on October 13, 1978.
The general rule is that the prosecutor or police officers may keep seized property until they are finished with its use as evidence. 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures, § 118, p 773. The owner of the property cannot replevy the property while it is held as evidence in a criminal prosecution. 66 Am Jur 2d, Replevin, § 36, fn 44, p 858.
The property involved herein was seized at the time of a lawful arrest. It was connected with the charged offense of murder. The trial court did not err in refusing to return to plaintiff the bulldozer and trailer until the completion of the preliminary examination. Because the plaintiff is a victim of crime, the failure to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of use of the equipment pending the criminal proceeding appears to be most unfair. Acknowledging this to be so, compensation herein based on error attributed to the trial judge should not result, since in my opinion the trial judge ruled correctly on what was submitted for consideration.
I would affirm the order of the circuit court refusing to order defendants to return the bulldozer and trailer to plaintiff.