State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895

Background

In Aug. 2015 police executed a warrant at McGuire’s residence and seized 16 items including firearms and ammunition. Several roommates lived at the house.
The State charged McGuire; charges were reduced to attempted simple possession (no allegation of intent to distribute). He pled no contest and was sentenced.
After sentencing McGuire moved in district court for return of seized property; the State sought dismissal arguing statutory authority allowed law enforcement to dispose of firearms and ammunition.
At the return hearing McGuire testified he was the lawful owner; the State presented evidence suggesting (1) some guns may have been used in drug manufacturing, (2) eTrace records listed other registered owners, and (3) several items were seized outside McGuire’s bedroom. The State did not identify or present evidence from roommates or other claimants.
The district court denied the State’s dismissal motion, ordered return of the 8 items seized from McGuire’s bedroom, and denied return of items seized elsewhere—apparently reasoning McGuire lacked exclusive possession of those items.
Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed jurisdiction in district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818, reversed the denial as to the non-bedroom items, and remanded for limited proceedings addressing any third-party superior title claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide disposition of seized property	McGuire: § 29-818 gives the court where charges are filed exclusive jurisdiction; § 29-820 does not divest that when a complaint is filed	State: § 29-820 authorizes law enforcement to dispose of certain items when no longer needed as evidence and thus divests court jurisdiction over such items	Held: § 29-818 grants the court exclusive jurisdiction when a complaint is filed; district court had jurisdiction and appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal
Whether seizure creates a presumption of ownership and who bears burden to rebut	McGuire: Seizure from him created a prima facie presumption of right to possession; State bears burden to show contraband, forfeiture, continuing interest, or superior title	State: Because residence had multiple occupants and some items were found outside McGuire’s bedroom, McGuire lacked exclusive possession and thus no presumption arose	Held: Seizure from a person is prima facie evidence of right to possession; the State bore the heavy burden to prove superior title/continuing interest, which it failed to do here
Whether the district court correctly denied return of items found outside McGuire’s bedroom	McGuire: Without evidence identifying superior claimants, items must be returned	State: Access by roommates rebutted presumption of ownership; eTrace suggested other owners for some firearms	Held: District court erred to the extent it relied on an incorrect reading of Agee; remand limited to allowing third-party claimants to prove superior title
Proper scope of remand and burden of proof on remand	McGuire: Remand should order return absent proof of superior title	State: Remand should permit law enforcement discretion under § 29-820	Held: Remand limited to claims of superior title by third parties; those claimants must first present evidence of superior title, and McGuire may rebut

Key Cases Cited

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2007) (seizure creates presumption of right to possession; government must show reason to retain)
In re Estate of Severns, 217 Neb. 803, 352 N.W.2d 865 (Neb. 1984) (discusses possession and title in property disputes)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Edwards, 903 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1990) (government must return property when unable to show third‑party ownership)
United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (court obligation to return seized property and restore status quo ante)
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304, 893 N.W.2d 430 (Neb. 2017) (standards for appellate review of district court rulings)