State v. Assad, 317 Neb. 20

Jason Assad operated a motel in Sidney, Nebraska, where a security system captured an incident leading to his conviction for several felonies.
Law enforcement seized Assad's digital video recorder (DVR) as evidence; the video was used in his criminal trial.
Assad was convicted and later exhausted both his direct appeal and postconviction relief options.
Assad filed a motion for the return of 22 items seized, including the DVR; the district court granted most items but denied the return of the DVR, offering a copy of its contents instead.
The State argued it needed to maintain possession of the DVR in case future legal proceedings warranted its production as evidence.
Assad appealed the decision, specifically the denial of the return of the DVR.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Assad is entitled to the return of his seized DVR	The DVR is not contraband and should be returned now that appeals are exhausted	The State needs to retain it as potential evidence for any possible future proceedings	The State may lawfully retain the DVR for future evidentiary use; denial of return affirmed

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (Neb. 2007) (discussing the standard for return and safekeeping of seized property)
State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895 (Neb. 2018) (affirming court’s authority to retain evidence post-trial for possible future proceedings)
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 (Neb. 2017) (postconviction and trial evidentiary requirements for seized property)