U.S. v. PLETNYOV, 08-0001 (PLF). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20150217b29
Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. Defendant moves for the return of his property, which he claims was seized by the government at the time of his arrest, pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He specifically requests the following items: (a) a Bulgarian passport; (b) a driver's license; (c) a retired policeman's card; (d) two hundred seventy dollars in foreign coins; (e) a set of house keys; (f) a set of car keys; and (g) a safe key. T
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. Defendant moves for the return of his property, which he claims was seized by the government at the time of his arrest, pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He specifically requests the following items: (a) a Bulgarian passport; (b) a driver's license; (c) a retired policeman's card; (d) two hundred seventy dollars in foreign coins; (e) a set of house keys; (f) a set of car keys; and (g) a safe key. Th..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
Defendant moves for the return of his property, which he claims was seized by the government at the time of his arrest, pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He specifically requests the following items: (a) a Bulgarian passport; (b) a driver's license; (c) a retired policeman's card; (d) two hundred seventy dollars in foreign coins; (e) a set of house keys; (f) a set of car keys; and (g) a safe key.
The government responds that, upon investigation, no evidence has been found that those items are, or ever were, in the custody of the United States government. The government proffers, and the Court agrees, that the facts of the case suggest that defendant's property is in the possession of the Polish authorities, who originally arrested defendant on October 16, 2006 on a matter unrelated to the investigation of this case. Defendant has not responded to the government's assertion that it does not possess the property.
Because the Court cannot order the government to relinquish property it does not control, it is therefore hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion for the return of property is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
