Rebuttal to Motion for Return of Property
The State rebuts this motion for the following reasons:
A text conversation is not an official contract or lease. It is the prospective tenant and the landlord's responsibility to put a lease in place before renting out or renting a property. These texts do not even have any dates associated with them.
There are no bank records showing that any sort of rent passed hands between the two who are claiming to be landlord/tenant.
There is no proof of the amount of cash that may or may not have been located in this apartment.
If we combine all these reasons, it is totally possible that absolutely anyone could claim any amount of money was taken from one of Chill's owned apartments, and that absolutely anyone could claim they were living in that domicile, too. Mix the two together, and it's a great way to make an easy buck off unverified claims.
Also, as there is no actual lease in place, nor any way for police to know that someone may or may not have been leasing that property, there's no reason why Mr. Halloway would have been served any raid receipts or a copy of the warrant.
