(a) The property seized shall be safely kept by the officer seizing it, under the direction
of the court, so long as may be necessary for the purpose of being used as evidence
in any case.
(b) As soon as may be thereafter, if the property is subject to forfeiture, further proceedings
shall be had on the property for forfeiture as is prescribed by law in chapter 21
of this title.
(c) If the property seized was stolen or otherwise unlawfully taken from the owner, or
is not found to have been unlawfully used or intended for unlawful use, or is found
to have been unlawfully used without the knowledge of the owner, it shall be returned
to the person legally entitled to its possession.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case:
Richer v. Parmelee, 189 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D.R.I. 2016).
Richer v. Parmelee, 189 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D.R.I. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Richer to file a state court action pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5-7 (“Disposition of Seized Property”) 5 to recover his property presents a low risk of erroneous deprivation and satisfies the constitutional floor.”
State v. Werner, 851 A.2d 1093 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Consequently, destruction of the original tape did not harm defendant’s ability to impeach Haines. Finally, defendant alleges on appeal that the Warwick police acted in bad faith in failing to either retain the original surveillance tape or instruct the bank to preserve it.”
State v. Shore, 522 A.2d 1215 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 2× “On May 22 we granted certiorari. The District Court, before which defendant was arraigned, has the jurisdiction to restore seized evidence to defendant.”
State v. Gottschalk, 373 A.2d 182 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 3× “General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-5-7, which provides for disposition of seized property, reads in pertinent part as follows: “Disposition of seized property.”
State v. Jaimeson Rushlow, 72 A.3d 868 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See G.L. 1956 §§ 12-5-7; 12-17-6. 2 As this Court noted, “the seizure of property from an individual is prima facie evidence of that individual’s entitlement to the property.”
Santiano v. Auto Placement Ctr., Inc., 379 A.2d 368 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-5-7. 1 The plaintiff claims that as a result of this determination, defendant state police, in cooperation with Hartford and without any notice or hearing to plaintiff, delivered the.”
State v. DeMasi, 447 A.2d 1139 (R.I. 1982).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-5-7. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a return of all seized property belonging to him; provided that it is non-contraband, not subject to forfeiture, not stolen or otherwise unlawfully taken from the owner, and not found to have been…”
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.