798 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2025Background
- On Aug. 20, 2025 federal agents arrested Treyvon Cooper and seized his cell phone.
- On Aug. 22, 2025 Cooper was charged by criminal complaint with misdemeanor simple possession of ~29.5g of marijuana.
- Rule 5 delay: Cooper was not brought before a Magistrate Judge until Aug. 25, 2025; the court found the delay unjustified.
- On Aug. 25 defense counsel orally moved for return of the seized phone under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g); a hearing was set for Aug. 27, 2025.
- The government had not forensically imaged the phone by Aug. 27 and offered only that it was drafting a search warrant; the phone was neither stolen nor contraband nor plainly evidentiary for the misdemeanor.
- The court found return appropriate, noting defendant's possessory interest, interference with counsel communications, negligible government harm, and the government could later obtain a warrant if needed; the phone was ordered returned the same day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should order return of a seized phone under Rule 41(g) | Government said it was drafting a warrant and needed time to search/extract data | Phone is not contraband, not needed as evidence for simple possession; possessory interest and Sixth Amendment communications harm | Granted: phone returned immediately |
| Whether the phone is contraband or forfeitable | Implied that phone could contain evidence supporting investigation | A phone used (allegedly) in a crime is not automatically contraband; many legitimate uses and strong possessory interest | Phone is not contraband merely for alleged use; return required |
| Whether the government needs the phone for evidentiary review now | Gov’t claimed need to draft warrant and search phone data | Gov’t had a week to image/extract data and had not done so; can obtain a warrant later if necessary | Government’s delay insufficient to justify continued seizure |
| Whether returning the phone poses significant risk of evidence loss or other harm | Government suggested potential investigatory need | Defendant faces greater disincentive to delete (would risk felony); pretrial release makes warrant service feasible | Risk to government minimal; return ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 185 F. Supp. 3d 79 (D.D.C. 2016) (district court duty to return seized property not alleged to be stolen, contraband, or forfeitable)
- United States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (jurisdictional and duty principles regarding return of property)
- United States v. Dennis, 622 F. Supp. 3d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (cell phones are not contraband merely because used in a crime; strong possessory interests in digital devices)