Replies

OK, I read Walters v. Wolf. I am familiar to some extent with the Florida statute; most states have statutes which require evidence seized by the police in the investigation of a crime to be “securely held.” Upon completion of the case, any evidence which may be lawfully possessed by the person from whom it was seized must be returned to its lawful owner.

In Walters v. Wolf, Walters was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun. However, he was a lawful permit holder, and the charges were dismissed. The gun was not returned, despite repeated written demands to do so. The Court concluded that his 14th Amendment Due Process rights were denied at the point either that the charges were dismissed or the gun was not returned. Walters’ 2nd Amendment claim was rejected.

I would say that Walters v. Wolf is applicable here if Zimmerman makes a demand for a return of his handgun, and is refused. I do not believe the Court is required to honor a Justice Department request to have the gun “held.” There is no longer any evidentiary reason for the Florida Court or any Florida state agency to hold the gun. If the Justice Department is considering any sort of investigation, what they need to do is go to a Federal District Court and obtain a District Court order to seize and hold the gun. In other words, what amounts to a search warrant. Such a warrant would have to be supported by sworn probable cause. I’d love to see what they would come up with.

So, if Zimmerman does nothing, he acquiesces in the holding of the gun. If he demands it back, the Court will either have to release it, or the Feds are going to have to present a Court order to get it. I doubt the Feds can claim they need time to “investigate.” They’ve had 503+ days to do that. Any further delay would be almost per se unreasonable.

That’s my quick and dirty take on it anyway.