Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085

Motions for return of property and to suppress evidence

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 179.085  Motions for return of property and to suppress evidence.

      1.  A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure or the deprivation of property may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that:

      (a) The property was illegally seized without warrant;

      (b) The warrant is insufficient on its face;

      (c) There was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued;

      (d) The warrant was illegally executed; or

      (e) Retention of the property by law enforcement is not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Ê The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion.

      2.  If the motion is granted on a ground set forth in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection 1, the property must be restored and it must not be admissible evidence at any hearing or trial.

      3.  If the motion is granted on the ground set forth in paragraph (e) of subsection 1, the property must be restored, but the court may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.

      4.  A motion to suppress evidence on any ground set forth in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, of subsection 1 may also be made in the court where the trial is to be had. The motion must be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing.

      5.  If a motion pursuant to this section is filed when no criminal proceeding is pending, the motion must be treated as a civil complaint seeking equitable relief.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1460; A 2015, 405)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: 54 Carolina Cherry Drive v. Anderson (In re 12067 Oakland Hills)
54 Carolina Cherry Drive v. Anderson (In re 12067 Oakland Hills) (2018) nevapp · cites it 12× “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
Maiola v. State (2004) nev · cites it 7× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the district court in which a criminal proceeding was heard has jurisdiction to hear a motion for return of property relating to that criminal proceeding *673 under NRS 179.085 after there has been a default judgment in a civil…”
One 1970 Chevrolet Motor Vehicle v. County of Nye (1974) nev · cites it 15× “NRS 179.085 controls the procedure to be followed to suppress evidence or to recover property that was illegally seized.”
Glass v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1971) nev · cites it 7× “NRS 179.085; Cook v. State, 85 Nev. 692 , 462 P.”
State v. Kincade (2013) nev · cites it 4× “045(5) mandates exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant NRS 179.”
State v. Allen (2003) nev “” 7 NRS 179.085(1) states: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that: (b) The warrant is…”
State v. Shade (1994) nev “2 The only statutory authority which appears to be relevant is NRS 179.085(1), which provides: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as…”
Nelson v. State (1980) nev “Sec NRS 179.085(1) and (3). At trial, the court denied the renewed motion, concluding that Nelson had standing to suppress the challenging evidence, that Rebori had not consented to the officers’ entry into her apartment, and that the warrantless intrusion and subsequent search…”
Cook v. State (1969) nev “” NRS 179.085 reads: “1. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that: (a) The property was…”
State v. Allen (2002) nev “” 7 NRS 179.085(1) states: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that: (b) The warrant is…”
IN RE: EXECUTION SEARCH WARRANTS (2018) nev · cites it 22× “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
In re Execution of Search Warrants (2018) nevapp · cites it 22× “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(1) — 11 cases
Maiola v. State (2004) nev “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the district court in which a criminal proceeding was heard has jurisdiction to hear a motion for return of property relating to that criminal proceeding *673 under NRS 179.085 after there has been a default judgment in a civil…”
State v. Allen (2003) nev “” 7 NRS 179.085(1) states: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that: (b) The warrant is…”
54 Carolina Cherry Drive v. Anderson (In re 12067 Oakland Hills) (2018) nevapp “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
State v. Shade (1994) nev “2 The only statutory authority which appears to be relevant is NRS 179.085(1), which provides: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as…”
Nelson v. State (1980) nev “Sec NRS 179.085(1) and (3). At trial, the court denied the renewed motion, concluding that Nelson had standing to suppress the challenging evidence, that Rebori had not consented to the officers’ entry into her apartment, and that the warrantless intrusion and subsequent search…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(1)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Kincade (2013) nev “045(5) mandates exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant NRS 179.”
State v. Kincade (2013) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(1)(d) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(1)(e) — 7 cases
54 Carolina Cherry Drive v. Anderson (In re 12067 Oakland Hills) (2018) nevapp “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
IN RE: EXECUTION SEARCH WARRANTS (2018) nev “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
In re Execution of Search Warrants (2018) nevapp “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(3) — 3 cases
One 1970 Chevrolet Motor Vehicle v. County of Nye (1974) nev “NRS 179.085 controls the procedure to be followed to suppress evidence or to recover property that was illegally seized.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(5) — 6 cases
54 Carolina Cherry Drive v. Anderson (In re 12067 Oakland Hills) (2018) nevapp “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
IN RE: EXECUTION SEARCH WARRANTS (2018) nev “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
In re Execution of Search Warrants (2018) nevapp “010(2)(b) and in so doing we clarify the evidentiary burdens that parties litigating return-of-property motions against a police department must meet under NRS 179.085. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suspecting respondent Laura Anderson of running a secret prostitution ring, the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.085(l)(c) — 1 case
Luciano v. Marshall (1979) nev
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.