State v. Ebert, 929 N.W.2d 478

In December 2016, Arthur D. Ebert was charged in Stanton County with theft by unlawful taking; the information listed numerous tools and other items allegedly taken from his employer, 3D Metal (Nucor Steel).
Ebert later pleaded guilty to unrelated sexual-assault and false-imprisonment charges; as part of the plea agreement the State dismissed the theft charge in its entirety.
After dismissal, Ebert moved for return of property seized from his vehicle and sought five specific items (a nylon harness, a square/level, one DeWalt tool case with tools, a Milwaukee sawzall, and JVC speakers); he conceded other seized items belonged to 3D Metal.
At an evidentiary hearing, Ebert testified he purchased or was gifted the five items but offered no receipts; 3D Metal’s supervisor testified the company owned similar items, sometimes marked, and some tools were missing after Ebert’s employment ended.
The trial court returned two items (speakers; square/level) to Ebert and ordered the remaining three returned to 3D Metal, reasoning Ebert had not proved ownership.
Ebert appealed, arguing the court misapplied the burden of proof; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the State bore the burden to show superior title after dismissal of criminal proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears burden to obtain return of seized property after criminal dismissal?	Ebert: once charge dismissed, person from whom property seized is presumptively entitled to return; State must justify retention.	State: trial court required Ebert to prove ownership of disputed items.	Court: Burden is on State to show legitimate reason or superior title; it was error to place burden on Ebert.
Quantum of proof required for State to overcome presumption of ownership	Ebert: not required to reprove ownership beyond seizure and possession.	State: must show better title but trial court applied incorrect standard.	Court: State must prove superior title by a preponderance of the evidence.
Proper statutory framework for disposition of seized property	Ebert: §29-818 governs because criminal charge was filed.	State: relied on trial court disposition; §29-820 not applicable here.	Court: §29-818 applies where court with exclusive jurisdiction was invoked; §29-820 applies only if §29-818 not invoked.
Whether trial court’s factual determinations should be sustained	Ebert: factual findings rest on misapplied legal standard.	State: contends evidence supported returns to 3D Metal for some items.	Court: Reversed and remanded because legal error (burden misapplied) precludes abuse-of-discretion review.

State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895 (discusses interplay of §§ 29-818 and 29-820 and burden implications for return-of-property motions)
State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (establishes presumption of right to return of seized property after termination of proceedings and burden on government)
State v. Card, 48 Wash. App. 781 (requires state to prove by preponderance that property is stolen to overcome possessor’s claim)
DeLoge v. State, 156 P.3d 1004 (treats postconviction return-of-property proceedings as civil with preponderance standard)