United States v. Douglas Spink

MEMORANDUM

Douglas Spink appeals from a district court order directing the government to erase the hard drives of two computers before returning them to Spink. We conclude that this condition on returning the computers is reasonable and affirm the district court’s order.

“We review the denial of a motion for return of property de novo.” United States v. Harrell, 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2008) (citing United States v. Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir.2005)). “We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” Id. (citing United States v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1999)). Once seized property is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes, “ ‘[t]he person from whom the property is seized is presumed to have a right to its return, and the government has the burden of demonstrating that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir.1987)).

Here, there appears to be no question that Spink is entitled to the return of the two computers. The only issue is whether the district court could direct that the computer hard drives be erased before the computers were returned to…