return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e).

Once the analyst has examined the computer system and data and decided that some items or information need not be kept, the government should return this property as soon as practicable. The courts have acknowledged an individual's property interest in seized items, and the owner of seized property can move the court for a return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). That remedy is available not only when the search was illegal, but also if the person simply alleges a "deprivation of property by the Government." In Re Southeastern Equipment Co. Search Warrant, 746 F. Supp. 1563 (S.D. Ga. 1990).
Agents and prosecutors must remember that while a computer may be analogous to a filing cabinet for the agents who search it, it is much more to most computer users. It can be a data processor, graphics designer, publisher, and telecommunications center. Courts will no doubt recognize the increasingly important role computers play in our society, and the public's extensive reliance on these computers to support the way we live and do business. As a result, law enforcement should be prepared to look carefully at the circumstances of each case and to seize computers only as needed, keeping them only as necessary.

Equal Protection of the Law Violated

Equal Protection of the Law:
The guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that all persons be treated equally by the law.
Court decisions have established that this guarantee requires that courts be open to all persons on the same conditions, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure; that persons be subject to no restrictions in the acquisition of property, the enjoyment of personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which do not generally affect others; that persons are liable to no other or greater burdens than such as are laid upon others and that no different or greater punishment is enforced against them for a violation of the laws.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1998/aug/21/law_enforcement_report2/

August 21, 1998

Burglaries and thefts reported

At least five business checks valued together on a police report at $1,215 were forged and cashed between 7 a.m. July 16 and 10 a.m. July 28. The checks were from the Yellow House, 1904 Mass. They were cashed at Commerce Bank, 647 Mass., police reported. The thefts were reported Aug. 7 and made public by police Thursday.

August 21, 1998
Burglaries and thefts reported * At least five business checks valued together on a police report at $1,215 were forged and cashed between 7 a.m. July 16 and 10 a.m. July 28. The checks were from the Yellow House, 1904 Mass. They were cashed at Commerce Bank, 647 Mass., police reported. The thefts were reported Aug. 7 and made public by police Thursday.



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1998/aug/22/check_thefts_plague_local/

Since then, about $5,300 in checks, most of them written at Dillons, 3000 W. Sixth,

Full docket text for document 213:
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors. Competency Hearing set for 12/7/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

The Tenth Circuit has noted that a district court is not required to consider the
length of pretrial detention when making its initial detention decision, but that after some
period of detention it may be appropriate to reopen the detention hearing to consider the
due process considerations of any future detention. United States v. Cos, 198 Fed. Appx.
727, 733 (10th Cir. 2006). If the hearing is reopened, in analyzing any due process claims,
the court is to consider three factors: (1) length of confinement and any non-speculative
expected confinement; (2) the Government’s responsibilities for delays in the
proceedings; and (3) the strength of the evidence supporting detention. See also United
States v. Cos, No. CR 05-1619-JB, 2006 WL 4061168 at * 3 (D.N.M. Nov. 15, 2006).11