The Wyoming Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s decision in a case involving a man, Scott Bressette, who sought the return of his truck or compensation after it was seized by law enforcement and later sold. The court ruled that the district court did not have the authority, under the relevant rule, to order the return of the truck because it was no longer in the state’s possession, nor could it award monetary damages in this situation.
The Background of the Case
The case began in September 2021 when law enforcement agents, acting on information from a confidential source, suspected that Bressette’s truck contained drugs. The source claimed to have stolen methamphetamine from the vehicle and that more was likely present.
Agents located the truck and, after arresting Bressette on an outstanding warrant, called for a K9 unit, which gave a positive alert for drugs. The truck was then towed to an evidence bay and a search warrant was obtained. During the search, agents found substances they believed to be drugs, though later testing revealed they were not.
The truck was subsequently released to A1 Towing, a towing company, which held it pending payment of towing and storage fees. Bressette was not informed about the vehicle’s location at the time. He later learned about the situation when reviewing documents with his attorney. When he attempted to retrieve the truck, he was informed he owed a substantial amount in fees, which he couldn’t afford. The truck was later sold at auction by the towing company.
In July 2024, Bressette, representing himself, filed a motion in court seeking the return of his truck or, alternatively, compensation for its value and the personal property inside. He estimated the truck’s value at $15,000 and the personal property at $5,000.
The State responded, stating it did not possess the vehicle and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to order its return. The district court agreed, denying Bressette’s motion.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision. The Court’s opinion focused on the scope of Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which deals with motions for the return of seized property.
Jurisdiction and Rule 41(g)
The central issue was whether the district court had jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to provide the relief Bressette requested. Rule 41(g) allows a person to move the court to return property when they are entitled to its lawful possession. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that this rule only applies when the government still possesses the property. In this case, the truck was in the possession of A1 Towing, not the State.
The Court cited prior rulings, including *DeLoge v. State*, which established that a court generally lacks jurisdiction to order the return of property under Rule 41(g) if the government no longer has possession of it. This principle was key to the Court’s decision.
Monetary Damages and Sovereign Immunity
Bressette’s alternative request for compensation for the loss of his truck was also rejected. The Court addressed the question of whether Rule 41(g) allows for monetary damages. The Court noted a split among federal courts on this issue, but agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41(g) when the government no longer possesses the property.
The Court cited the *Wyoming Governmental Claims Act*, which provides a framework for claims against the government. Because Bressette had not filed a claim under this act, the Court concluded his request for damages was barred by sovereign immunity.
Due Process Concerns and Future Options
While the Court denied Bressette’s motion under Rule 41(g), it acknowledged his concerns about due process, as the truck was seized and later sold without his knowledge. The Court clarified that the denial of relief under Rule 41(g) does not prevent Bressette from filing a separate civil lawsuit to seek compensation for the value of his property. The Court suggested that this separate civil action would be the appropriate avenue for Bressette to pursue his claims.
Seizure vs. Possession
The Court also addressed the question of when the truck was considered “seized.” The Court clarified that the act of calling a tow truck to remove the vehicle constituted a seizure, triggering the state’s obligations under Wyoming Statute § 7-2-105. This statute outlines the procedures for handling seized property. Despite the seizure, the Court emphasized that the critical factor for the Rule 41(g) motion was the government’s lack of current possession.
Conclusion
The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision underscores the limitations of Rule 41(g) and the importance of following proper procedures when seeking the return of seized property or compensation for its loss. While the ruling does not provide Bressette with immediate relief, it clarifies his options for pursuing his claims through a separate civil action.