United States v. Dennis Edward Elias
Opinion
Opinion
Alarcon, J.
Dennis Edward Elias appeals from the dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), for the return of $14,830 and a Chevrolet IROC automobile. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) had seized the property as an incident to Elias’ arrest in a private residence.
The district court denied the motion for the return of property based on the representation of the parties that civil administrative forfeiture proceedings had been initiated by the government prior to the filing of the Rule 41(e) motion.
Elias contends that the district court was required to return the property pursuant to a Rule 41(e) motion upon the dismissal of the criminal action on July 7, 1989, based on the lack of probable cause to arrest him.
We must decide whether the district court properly dismissed the Rule 41(e) motion because the government had previously initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings which provided the claimant with an adequate remedy at law for the return of the property that was seized. We affirm because we conclude that Elias had an adequate remedy at law at the time he initiated these equitable proceedings.