Except for animals as provided in section 28-1012.01, property seized under a search warrant or validly seized without a warrant shall be safely kept by the officer seizing the same, unless otherwise directed by the judge or magistrate, and shall be so kept so long as necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence in any trial. Property seized may not be taken from the officer having it in custody by replevin or other writ so long as it is or may be required as evidence in any trial, nor may it be so taken in any event where a complaint has been filed in connection with which the property was or may be used as evidence, and the court in which such complaint was filed shall have exclusive jurisdiction for disposition of the property or funds and to determine rights therein, including questions respecting the title, possession, control, and disposition thereof. This section shall not preempt, and shall not be construed to preempt, any ordinance of a city of the metropolitan or primary class.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895 (Neb. 2018).
State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 10× “We conclude Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016) granted exclusive jurisdiction to the district court to determine the property's disposition.”
State v. Ebert, 303 Neb. 394 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 8× “§ 29-818 APPLIES Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016) provides in relevant part: [P]roperty seized under a search warrant .”
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 9× “304 Buttercase contends that he was denied his right to the return of certain personal property, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016). The district court denied the motion.”
State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 6× “2d 122 (2002); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-818 to 29-820 (Reissue 1995 & Cum.”
State v. Holmes, 379 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 10× “The defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in failing to order the return of the seized property pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 29-818 et seq. (Reissue 1979), and (2) that the trial court erred in sustaining the oral motion of the State for the imposition of additional…”
Huff v. Otto, 28 Neb. Ct. App. 646 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 35× “Where invoked, the grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016) gives a criminal trial court exclusive jurisdiction over only two issues: disposition of seized property and determination of rights in seized property.”
Dortch v. City of Omaha, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 244 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “We note that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016) provides that a party may apply to the court by replevin or other writ for the return of property seized pursuant to a search warrant or validly seized without a warrant under certain conditions.”
State v. Castor, 599 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The court found that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 1995) was not applicable and that there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the State to substantiate an alleged denial of due process.”
State v. Zimmer, 311 Neb. 294 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 7× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016). 6 Id.”
State v. Trammell, 484 N.W.2d 263 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Trammell contends that he was denied due process because this physical evidence was not available for his use in preparing his defense.”
State v. Cox, 523 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “This series or collection of statutes, as the title suggests, addresses various rules pertaining to the possession, control, suppression, disposition, and return of property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding.”
State v. Maestas, 647 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “§ 29-818 (Reissue 1995) states as follows: Property seized under a search warrant or validly seized without a warrant shall be safely kept by the officer seizing the same unless otherwise directed by the judge or magistrate, and shall be so kept so long as necessary for the…”
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.