1. Jurisdiction
2. Miscellaneous
1. Jurisdiction
The district court, as the court in which the criminal charge was filed, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the rights to seized property and the property's disposition. State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895, 921 N.W.2d 77 (2018).
The court in which a criminal charge was filed has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the rights to seized property and the property's disposition. State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (2007).
A car was property seized for the purpose of enforcing criminal laws in the plaintiff's ongoing criminal case; therefore, the car had been and remained to be in the custody of the court in the criminal case. As such, the district court in the plaintiff's separate criminal case continued to have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the rights to the car and the car's disposition. Huff v. Otto, 28 Neb. App. 646, 947 N.W.2d 343 (2020).
A harmonious reading of this section and section 29-819 is that references to jurisdiction in each are to jurisdiction over seized property, not subject matter jurisdiction. Huff v. Otto, 28 Neb. App. 646, 947 N.W.2d 343 (2020).
Where invoked, the grant of "exclusive jurisdiction" under this section gives a criminal trial court exclusive jurisdiction over only two issues: the disposition of seized property and the determination of rights in seized property. Huff v. Otto, 28 Neb. App. 646, 947 N.W.2d 343 (2020).
2. Miscellaneous
The denial of a motion for the return of a seized firearm was improper where the State failed to meet its burden to show the firearm was used by the claimant in an unlawful manner as an instrumentality of a crime. State v. Zimmer, 311 Neb. 294, 972 N.W.2d 57 (2022).
This section applies to a motion for the return of seized property where the firearm was seized incident to arrest for discharging a firearm within the city limits, a complaint was later filed charging refusal to obey a lawful order stemming from the incident, and the person pled guilty to this charge. State v. Zimmer, 311 Neb. 294, 972 N.W.2d 57 (2022).
The presumptive right to possession of seized property may be overcome when superior title in another is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Ebert, 303 Neb. 394, 929 N.W.2d 478 (2019).
Postconviction proceedings are the equivalent of a "trial" for purposes of this section. State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304, 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017).
Property seized and held as evidence is to be safely kept by the officer seizing it unless otherwise directed by the court, and the officer is to exercise reasonable care and diligence for the safekeeping of the property. The property shall be kept so long as necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence at trial. State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (2007).
A police officer's failure to "safely" keep a seized vehicle can give rise to liability under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. Section 29-818 requires a police officer to exercise reasonable care and diligence for the safekeeping of property within his custody. Nash v. City of North Platte, 205 Neb. 480, 288 N.W.2d 51 (1980).
This section mandates that the seized property is to be kept so long as necessary to make it available as evidence in "any trial." Postconviction proceedings are the equivalent of a "trial" for purposes of this section. Huff v. Otto, 28 Neb. App. 646, 947 N.W.2d 343 (2020).
The trial court's decision on the return of seized property is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Maestas, 11 Neb. App. 262, 647 N.W.2d 122 (2002).