USA v. IBM Computer Tower et al, No. 2:2009cv00897 - Document 9 (D. Utah 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 3 Motion for Writ; denying 4 Motion for Writ of Replevin. The court, will construe Searles two documents as an answer and claim and an amended answer and claim for purposes of this forfeiture action. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 01/22/2010. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER IBM COMPUTER TOWER, et al., Case No. 2:09CV 897DAK Defendants. Judge Dale A. Kimball This matter is before the court on Interested Party Charles Lewis Searle s Motion for Writ of Replevin and Amended Motion for Writ of Replevin. Although the documents filed by Searle are only entitled Writ of Replevin, they were docketed as motions. The government did not respond because it did not view the documents as motions. The court, however, ordered the government to respond to the documents, which it did on January 21, 2010. A writ of replevin is not available to a claimant to recover seized property in a civil forfeiture case. 18 U.S.C. ยง 981(c) specifically prohibits replevin as a remedy for property that has been seized: Property taken or detained under this section shall not be repleviable. The proper method for recovering seized property is by filing an answer and claim in the civil forfeiture action. The court, therefore, denies Searle s motion and amended motion for a writ of replevin. The government, however, asserted that because Searle is proceeding pro se, it is willing to consider Searle s documents as answers and claims. The court, therefore, will construe Searle s two documents as an answer and claim and an amended answer and claim for purposes of this forfeiture action. DATED this 22d day of January, 2010. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
