Filed: Dec. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Tavares Felton's Motion for Clarification (Doc. #88) filed on November 14, 2016, and Motion for Return of Seized Property (Doc. #89) filed on December 2, 2016. The Government filed its Response to Felton's Motion to Return Seized Funds on December 12, 2016. The Matter is ripe for review. In his Motion, Felton requests the return of money that was seized in connection with his arrest in this cri
Summary: ORDER SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Tavares Felton's Motion for Clarification (Doc. #88) filed on November 14, 2016, and Motion for Return of Seized Property (Doc. #89) filed on December 2, 2016. The Government filed its Response to Felton's Motion to Return Seized Funds on December 12, 2016. The Matter is ripe for review. In his Motion, Felton requests the return of money that was seized in connection with his arrest in this crim..
More
ORDER
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Tavares Felton's Motion for Clarification (Doc. #88) filed on November 14, 2016, and Motion for Return of Seized Property (Doc. #89) filed on December 2, 2016. The Government filed its Response to Felton's Motion to Return Seized Funds on December 12, 2016. The Matter is ripe for review.
In his Motion, Felton requests the return of money that was seized in connection with his arrest in this criminal matter. (Doc. #90 at 1). The Government asserts that it is not in possession of the requested funds, but rather that the funds are subject to civil forfeiture proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, in Case No. 15-CA-002069. (Doc. #92 at 1-2).
The government is not obligated to return property that it no longer possesses, but it must provide evidence demonstrating that it no longer maintains possession. See United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001). The Government has met this burden. (Doc. #92-1). Therefore, Felton's motions are subject to denial. Notably, this is not a denial of relief, as Felton is free to pursue relief in state court.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Motion for Return of Seized Property (Doc. #89) is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Motion for Clarification (Doc. #88) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED.
