UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Keith FITZEN, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
80 F.3d 387·96 Daily Journal DAR 3930·1996 WL 157197·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6559·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2335
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 5, 199695-30178California924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rymer, J.

Dwayne Keith Fitzen appeals pro se the district court’s partial denial of his Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(e) motion for return of property seized during the investigation by state and federal officials leading to his trial and conviction in federal court of various drug trafficking offenses. The district court refused to order return of the property on the ground that Fitzen’s remedy, if any, lay in state court. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

In the summer of 1991, a joint state/federal task force began investigating Fitzen. Members of the task force included representatives of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Idaho Bureau of Narcotics (IBN), and the local police department. Pursuant to a federal search warrant, agents seized the property at issue in this case. Fitzen was indicted and convicted of various drug trafficking offenses in federal court.

Subsequently, Fitzen sought return of the seized property pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). In response to Fitzen’s 41(e) motion, the federal government indicated that all of the property was in the possession of the IBN. The government conceded that the property was no longer…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.