La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41 (2026)

Disposition of property seized in connection with criminal proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CODE TITLE IV. SEARCH WARRANTS

§41. Disposition of property seized in connection with criminal proceedings

           A. If there is a specific statute concerning the disposition of the seized property, the property shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions thereof.

           B. If there is no such specific statute, the following governs the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, which is not to be used as evidence or is no longer needed as evidence:

           (1) The seized property shall be returned to the owner, unless a statute declares the property to be contraband, in which event the court shall order the property destroyed if the court determines that its destruction is in the public interest; otherwise, Paragraph (2) of this Section shall apply.

           (2) If the seized property is contraband, and the court determines that it should not be destroyed, or if the owner of noncontraband property does not claim it within six months after its seizure, the court shall order:

           (a) A sale of the property at a nonjudicial public sale or auction, if the court concludes that such a sale will probably result in a bid greater than the costs of the sale. The proceeds of the sale shall be administered by the court and used exclusively for the maintenance, renovation, preservation, or improvement of the court building, facilities, or records system.

           (b) If the court concludes that the cost of a public sale would probably exceed the highest bid, the court may order the property transferred to a public or a nonprofit institution or destroyed or may make such other court ordered disposition as it deems appropriate.

           C. Where the release of seized property is sought by a person claiming to be the owner, it shall be released only upon motion contradictorily with the clerk of court. In all other cases the court may either render an ex parte order for the disposition of the property as herein provided on motion of any interested person, or on its own motion, or the court may require a motion contradictorily with the apparent owner or the person in possession of the property at the time of the seizure.

           D. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an official criminalistics laboratory may destroy any controlled dangerous substance, controlled dangerous substance paraphernalia, or both, in its possession without an order of court after a period of five years from the date of seizure. Any criminalistics laboratory intending to destroy a controlled dangerous substance, controlled dangerous substance paraphernalia, or both, pursuant to this Subsection shall give the seizing agency and the district attorney thirty days notice prior to such destruction. In the case that the seizing agency or the district attorney object to such destruction, no destruction shall occur.

           Acts 1983, No. 300, §1; Acts 1987, No. 614, §1; Acts 1989, No. 479, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1195, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: In Re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009). · cites it 43× “R.S. 15:41. For the reasons that follow, we find that because documents and copies of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum are not "property seized" within the meaning of La.”
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City, 675 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 9× “R.S. 15:41 is part and parcel of a criminal proceeding”).”
State v. Foster, 43 So. 3d 200 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “R.S. 15:41 provided in pertinent part: *203 A.”
State v. Baynes, 678 So. 2d 959 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “I § 4; La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:41. It is not contended that the thirty-seven weapons that Mr.”
State v. Authement, 532 So. 2d 869 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “14:67 and 14:68, and LSA-R.S. 15:41. Thereafter, on May 4, 1987, the state amended the bill of information to charge Songe and Authement with violating LSA-R.”
State v. Lamb, 645 So. 2d 791 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “On July 14, 1992, the district court granted the state's motion ex parte and, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:41, transferred the ownership of the money to the Metro Narcotics Unit of Ouachita Parish.”
Taiae v. City of Baton Rouge, 808 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “R.S. 15:41(A). If there is no such specific statute, the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, but which is not to be used as evidence, is governed by the provisions of La.”
State v. Thompson, 204 So. 3d 1019 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “R.S. 15:41 and the 2004 Judgment, Mr. Thompson requested the return of his property or the monetary equivalent thereof that was seized by the LDWF on August 17, 1996.”
Does v. Foti, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009). · cites it 50× “R.S. 15:41. For the reasons that follow, we find that because documents and copies of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum are not “property seized” within the meaning of La.”
Delta Retail 45, L.L.C. v. Cox, 26 So. 3d 200 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “R.S. 15:41, Disposition of property seized in connection with criminal proceedings, provides: A.”
Cinel v. Connick, 792 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. La. 1992). · cites it 6× “R.S. 15:41, it is possible that the state criminal district court ultimately could order all the copies of the materials *498 seized from plaintiff’s residence (except the alleged child pornography 6 ) transferred back to Mr.”
Treece v. State of Louisiana, 74 F. App'x 315 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “R.S. 15:41; La. R.S. 33:2333. His argument that the release of the cash required a forfeiture hearing is also without merit.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(A): 4 cases
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City, 675 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 2012). “R.S. 15:41 is part and parcel of a criminal proceeding”).”
Taiae v. City of Baton Rouge, 808 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:41(A). If there is no such specific statute, the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, but which is not to be used as evidence, is governed by the provisions of La.”
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City (5th Cir. 2012).
Brown v. Neustrom, 916 So. 2d 395 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(B): 8 cases
In Re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009). “R.S. 15:41. For the reasons that follow, we find that because documents and copies of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum are not "property seized" within the meaning of La.”
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City, 675 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 2012). “R.S. 15:41 is part and parcel of a criminal proceeding”).”
Taiae v. City of Baton Rouge, 808 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:41(A). If there is no such specific statute, the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, but which is not to be used as evidence, is governed by the provisions of La.”
Delta Retail 45, L.L.C. v. Cox, 26 So. 3d 200 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 15:41, Disposition of property seized in connection with criminal proceedings, provides: A.”
Does v. Foti, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009). “R.S. 15:41. For the reasons that follow, we find that because documents and copies of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum are not “property seized” within the meaning of La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(B)(1): 2 cases
Owens v. Book, 809 So. 2d 1217 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Shihadea, 171 So. 3d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(B)(2): 5 cases
Taiae v. City of Baton Rouge, 808 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:41(A). If there is no such specific statute, the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, but which is not to be used as evidence, is governed by the provisions of La.”
State v. Lamb, 732 So. 2d 1270 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Owens v. Book, 809 So. 2d 1217 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Tyson, 48 So. 3d 428 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Brown v. Neustrom, 916 So. 2d 395 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(B)(2)(a): 3 cases
Taiae v. City of Baton Rouge, 808 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:41(A). If there is no such specific statute, the disposition of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, but which is not to be used as evidence, is governed by the provisions of La.”
State v. Tyson, 48 So. 3d 428 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Brown v. Neustrom, 916 So. 2d 395 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:41(C): 13 cases
In Re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So. 3d 972 (La. 2009). “R.S. 15:41. For the reasons that follow, we find that because documents and copies of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum are not "property seized" within the meaning of La.”
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City, 675 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 2012). “R.S. 15:41 is part and parcel of a criminal proceeding”).”
Treece v. State of Louisiana, 74 F. App'x 315 (5th Cir. 2003). “R.S. 15:41; La. R.S. 33:2333. His argument that the release of the cash required a forfeiture hearing is also without merit.”
Thomas v. St. Charles Par., 613 So. 2d 698 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
Errol Houston, Jr. v. New Orleans City (5th Cir. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.