U.S. v. Brosnan, CR 10-0068 WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160523720
Visitors: 12
Filed: May 16, 2016
Latest Update: May 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Defendant John Brosnan has filed another motion for return of property, despite numerous representations from the government that it no longer possesses any property that belongs to him. Brosnan asserts that the initial report regarding items seized from Brosnan does not match the receipt for the property returned to him. Specifically, the initial report lists an IOgear memory stick while the return receipt
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Defendant John Brosnan has filed another motion for return of property, despite numerous representations from the government that it no longer possesses any property that belongs to him. Brosnan asserts that the initial report regarding items seized from Brosnan does not match the receipt for the property returned to him. Specifically, the initial report lists an IOgear memory stick while the return receipt l..
More
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Defendant John Brosnan has filed another motion for return of property, despite numerous representations from the government that it no longer possesses any property that belongs to him. Brosnan asserts that the initial report regarding items seized from Brosnan does not match the receipt for the property returned to him. Specifically, the initial report lists an IOgear memory stick while the return receipt lists three IOgear thumb drives. Brosnan asserts that this discrepancy shows the government failed to return the IOgear memory stick. A more likely explanation is that the FBI agent who created the return receipt used the term "thumb drive" instead of "memory stick" to describe the item.
Based on Brosnan's numerous attempts to manipulate these proceedings, and based on the government's numerous representations that it no longer possesses any property belonging to him, Brosnan's motion to compel the return of property is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
