Preview:

Abbott v. United States of America                                           Doc. 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY ABBOTT,                                                              )
)
Plaintiff,                                                                   )
)
vs.                                                                          )                                                                   No.  4:07MC517-DJS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                    )
)
Defendant.                                                                   )
ORDER
Gregory  Abbott  has  filed  the  instant  motion  to  return
property  pursuant  to  Fed.R.Crim.P.  41(g)  (formerly  41(e)),  which
provides:
A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of
property or by the deprivation of property may move for
the property’s return...The court must receive evidence
on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion.   If
it grants the motion, the court must return the property
to  the  movant,  but  may  impose  reasonable  conditions  to
protect  access  to  the  property  and  its  use  in  later
proceedings.
The  undisputed  facts  relevant  to  the  motion  are  as  follows.    On
August                                                                       19,                                                                 2006,  upon  returning  to  his  vehicle  in  the  parking
garage  at  the  Gateway  Arch,  located  within  the  National  Park
Service’s   Jefferson   National   Expansion   Memorial,   Abbott   was
approached by a federal law enforcement official and cited for open
containers of alcohol in a vehicle, based on empty beer cans seen
in the bed of Abbott’s pickup truck.   When Abbott disclosed that he
had  a                                                                       .38  caliber  handgun  stored  in  the  truck,  the  firearm  was
Dockets.Justia.com




seized  and  Abbott  was  cited  for  possession  of  a  firearm  in  a
federal facility.
The citations were resolved by Abbott’s agreement to pay
a “settlement fine” of $250.   The United States Attorney’s proposal
as  to  the  fine,  apparently  accepted  by  Abbott’s  later  payment  of
the proposed amount, states that the fine would be “on” the firearm
citation and that the open container citation would be dismissed.
Abbott’s Exh. D [Doc. #1-8].   The November 14, 2006 letter offering
the  settlement  proposal  states  the  policy  of  the  United  States
Attorney’s Office “that any weapon seized on federal property will
not be returned.”    Id.    The Clerk’s Office receipt dated April  3,
2007 reflects Abbott’s payment of the $250 fine.   Subsequently, by
letter dated August 1, Abbott’s counsel questioned the validity of
the  policy  and  sought  the  return  of  the  firearm  to  his  client.
Abbott’s Exh. E  [Doc.  #1-9].    When that inquiry was unsuccessful,
the instant motion for return of the property was filed.
Abbott  contends  that  the  seizure  of  the  firearm was
unlawful  because  the  Arch  garage  lacked  the  posted  notice  of  the
prohibition that federal statute requires.   Title 18 U.S.C. §930(h)
provides  that                                                               “no  person  shall  be  convicted”  of  an  offense  for
possession of a firearm in a federal facility in the absence of a
notice of the ban “posted conspicuously at each public entrance to”
the  facility.    In  any  event,  no  proceedings  remain  pending as  to
which   the   firearm   might   be  used   in   evidence   or   sought  in
forfeiture.   Abbott alleges that he is the lawful owner of the gun,
2




that  it  does  not  constitute  contraband,  and  that  there  exists  no
lawful  basis  for  the  gun’s  retention  by  the  government.     In
opposition, the government contends that Abbott accepted terms of
settlement  of  the  two  citations  which  included  the  government’s
retention of the weapon, and that the effort to recover the gun is
untimely and in violation of the parties’ agreement for disposition
of the two petty offense citations.    In reply, Abbott argues that
the  government’s  settlement  proposal  did  not  contemplate  its
retention of the weapon as a term of settlement, but merely stated
its intention not to return the gun as a policy of the prosecutor’s
office.
Abbott’s  arguments  concerning  the  legitimacy  of
enforcement of the firearm ban when not posted on the premises are
unavailing  at  this  juncture,  after  his  settlement  of  the  related
citation  by  the  payment  of  the  fine.    Neither  party  has  offered
evidence on the issue of Abbott’s lawful ownership of the weapon,
but the burden on that issue falls upon the government if it seeks
to deprive Abbott of property on that basis.   Finally, upon careful
consideration  of  the  structure  and  wording  of  the  government’s
November  14 letter, the Court is persuaded that forfeiture of the
weapon  was  not  stated  as  a  condition  of  the  settlement  proposal,
and neither was Abbott’s acceptance of the government’s policy of
retaining  seized  weapons.    Further,  the  record  reflects  Abbott’s
stated  disagreement  with  the  policy’s  application  in  his  case
several times after receipt of the November 14 letter in which the
3




policy  was  noted.     Abbott’s  payment  of  the  proposed  fine  in
settlement of the firearm citation did not constitute an agreement
to the forfeiture of the gun.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for return
of property  [Doc.  #1] is granted.
IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  ADJUDGED  AND  DECREED  that  the
United  States  shall  promptly  return  to  the  custody  of  Gregory
Abbott or his attorneys the .38 caliber Colt “Cobra” firearm seized
from  Mr.  Abbott’s  vehicle  on  August                                 19,   2006,  as  reflected  in
Violation Notice P  0346788.
Dated this                                                               6th   day of February,  2008.
/s/Donald J. Stohr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

Download 14941.pdf

Missouri Law