| | Brief Bank II: indexed by issue |
| | ***************************************************************************************************** |
| | Civil forfeiture vs. criminal forfeiture | [ | 55 | ] |
| | POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND |
| | STATEMENTS |
| | It has long been settled that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule applies in civil |
| | forfeiture cases to the same extent that it applies in criminal cases. There is no express |
| | civil rule which governs the procedures for litigating suppression issues in forfeiture |
| | cases. Proper procedure for litigating fourth amendment issues in forfeiture cases are |
| | the procedures and practices of this court now in effect in the criminal courts pursuant |
| | to Criminal Rule 41(g). Superior Court Criminal Rule 41(g) is modelled after Federal Rule |
| | of Criminal Procedure 41(e) & (f). The Advisory Committee Notes for those two |
| | subsections of Rule 41 indicate that they were restatements of existing law and practice. |
| | by | Grantland, Brenda |
| | DISTRICT OF | v. | ONE 1980 BLUE JAGUAR: SERIES XJ53 | CA-3256-87 | ( | 1987 | ) |
| | COLUMBIA |
| | browser view: | available | BrowserView |
| | Word Perfect | available | WordPerfect |
| | MS_Word version: | available | MSWord |
| | RTF version: | RichTextFormat | [ | supp002 | ] |
| | PDF version: | [ | 200 | ] |
| | . |
| | Monday, June 19, 2006 | Page 1 of 1 |
Page 1.