Whether a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) motion for return of seized property must be brought in the district where the property was seized or the district where the criminal proceedings occurred

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · 2d Cir.United States v. Giovanelli998 F.2d 116

  “Giovanelli, 998 F.2d 116 , 118 (2d Cir.1993), has held that the district court which had presided over the underlying criminal proceeding had jurisdiction over a Rule 41(e) motion brought after the conclusion of the criminal matter even though the property had been seized in a different district.” — Clymore v. United States, acknowledging the split

• On the other side · 8th Cir.Thompson v. Covington47 F.3d 974
• Joined by · 4th Cir.United States v. Garcia65 F.3d 17

  “Garcia, 65 F.3d 17 , 20 (4th Cir.1995) (Murhaghan, C.J., dissenting and arguing that jurisdiction would be proper in either venue).” — Clymore v. United States, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:

ancillary jurisdiction