United States v. Wright, 2:14-cr-00357

Brian Wright was arrested on Feb. 10, 2017 at a Las Vegas residence (West Arby Property) on a supervised-release revocation; he is currently incarcerated and not facing new charges related to this seizure.
Law enforcement seized $2,152 from Wright's pocket and $40,000 hidden in a mattress box spring; rings and other personal items were removed from Wright’s fingers during processing.
The $40,000 was wrapped in casino "gold bands" that CG Technology/Silverton employees identified as unique to the Silverton Sportsbook; Wright’s alleged co‑conspirator Matthew Cannon pled guilty in connection with Silverton robberies and had access to the West Arby Property.
Wright filed a pro se Rule 41(g) motion seeking return of property; counsel filed a supplement and a motion to consolidate the pro se and counseled filings; the court held an evidentiary hearing.
The government conceded it had no basis to continue withholding the $2,152 and maintained the $40,000 are proceeds of a robbery (and thus not Wright’s), and contended it never took custody of the rings (left at the residence).
The court considered both the pro se and counseled arguments together, held the evidentiary hearing, and reserved ruling on a Galaxy S7 Edge phone pending a status report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to consolidate / adjudicate pro se + counsel filings	Treat pro se motion and counsel supplement as one motion for adjudication	Motions procedurally improper	Granted in part: court considered both submissions as one motion for hearing purposes
Return of $2,152 taken from Wright's pocket	Money is Wright's personal cash and must be returned under Rule 41(g)	Government conceded no basis to withhold	Granted: court recommended return of $2,152 to Wright
Return of $40,000 found in box spring	Large cash presumption favors return; revocation proceeding over so property should be returned	Cash is stolen proceeds from Silverton robbery; gold bands link funds to casino; co‑conspirator connection	Denied: court found by preponderance that funds are proceeds of robbery and government has legitimate reason to retain/transfer them to Silverton's insurer
Return of rings removed from Wright's fingers	Rings were taken from him and should be returned	Government did not seize or retain the rings; they were left at the residence where others had access	Denied: court found government never possessed rings, so it cannot return them; court notes missing rings likely due to others' access
Galaxy S7 Edge phone	Wright says one phone belongs to him and seeks its return	Government needed to confer with agents to verify possession/ownership	Unresolved: court ordered a joint status report by Dec. 30, 2020 regarding the phone

U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 41(g) protects those whose property/privacy interests are impaired by a seizure)
Savoy v. United States, 604 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2010) (seized property, other than contraband, should be returned once proceedings end)
United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1987) (burden shifts to government once property no longer needed for evidence)
United States v. Gladding, 775 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (government must show items are contraband or subject to forfeiture)
U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (preponderance standard discussed)
United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996) (government may rebut ownership presumption by showing adverse claim)
United States v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1977) (if possession is unlawful, state retains items regardless of how obtained)
United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1991) (41(g) motion denied when movant not entitled to lawful possession)
Henderson v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 1780 (U.S. 2015) (federal courts retain equitable authority to order return of property after criminal proceedings)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (Excessive Fines Clause limits government’s power to extract payments as punishment)