Motion for Return of Property: Wolfram Oneail

Sam Burton | James Argento

Motion for Return of Property: Wolfram Oneail
Date Filed: 6/21/2025
Lawyer Name: Sam Burton
Lawyer Phone #: 555-0463
Client Name: Wolfram Oneail
Client Phone #: 554-0856
Requesting: Return of cash seized in report #36208. Nothing provided even suggests that the intent was to sell the vehicle, let alone that this cash came from the unlawful sale of a different unknown vehicle. Simply being involved in a crime does not inherently mean the money in your possession can be seized.

Kinsley Murphy

Motion of Entry:

Kinsley Murphy for the ADA Office.

Kinsley Murphy

Your Honor,

Based on the evidence within the attached evidence locker for this criminal charge the following things are evident:

A CAN injector is present and was found on the suspect's person.
A moderate, though not excessive, financial value was found on the suspect's person.
The crime of Grand Theft Auto, otherwise known as 'Boosting' was plead guilty to by the suspect.

The State wishes to make it obvious that civil asset forfeiture is a standard procedure for arrests on boosting calls. Individuals in possession of a CAN Injector are the ones that actively financially benefit from the crime of Grand Theft Auto. It is also reasonable to suggest that, given the clear and admitted intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle of this asset, that any finances found within the glovebox or trunk of the vehicle may well have been taken by the suspect.

Wolfram Oneail had plead Guilty to the crimes he was charged with, the primary purpose of crime is financial gain. It is standard for the State to seize any monetary assets from a person on their arrest when brought into custody on any crime related to and/or providing financial gain. It is on Wolfram Oneail to provide evidence of where these finances originate, not the State.

Regards,

Kinsley Murphy ADA

Sam Burton | James Argento

Rebuttal

While the 3 initial facts given by the prosecution are not in dispute, the rest very much is.

Whether or not the seizure of assets by the police is standard practice is almost entirely irrelevant to the legality of such seizures.
It merely being "possible" that the finances were found in the vehicle is not the standard for burden of proof. It is the states responsibility to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the assets were tied to a crime.
The crime in question providing a potential financial gain does not prove that the specific cash found on the defendant was illegally obtained. As there is nothing tying the cash to this crime, seizure of said cash would be equivalent to taking the money straight out of the defendants bank account.

In summary, while the burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is significantly lower (preponderance of evidence), it is not so low as to allow the seizure of assets that were simply in the defendants possession and have no actual connection to criminal activity. Quite simply, the state regularly doing something unlawful does not suddenly make it lawful.

Theodore Lars

You may file proof of income to collect the money potentially, but I agree with the state, they seized evidence of a crime. Don't do crimes with copious amounts of cash......especially with a Guilty Plea (Or verdict, report says 'Guilty')