The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Cannon v. United States, No. 24-1317, reversing a lower court's decision that favored the federal government. The ruling, filed on June 29, 2026, allows Lionel Cannon to seek the return of $218,200 seized by an FBI agent during a drug trafficking investigation. This decision has implications for how similar cases involving seized property may be handled in the future.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the rights of individuals to reclaim property seized by the government, especially when the property has been mishandled or stolen by government agents. Cannon's case highlights issues of accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies, particularly concerning the handling of seized assets.

Background

The dispute centers around Lionel Cannon, who was under investigation by the FBI for drug trafficking in August 2014. During a lawful search of his mother's home, agents seized $585,000 in cash from a safe located in Cannon's bedroom. However, shortly after the seizure, FBI Special Agent Scott Bowman pocketed $218,200 of that cash. This theft was later discovered, leading to Bowman's indictment and guilty plea for conversion of property.

After the theft, Cannon, who was in pretrial custody, informed the FBI about the total amount of cash that had been taken. In 2017, Cannon pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges and agreed to forfeit $366,800, the amount officially recorded as seized, which did not include the stolen cash. Subsequently, Cannon filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for the return of the $218,200 that had never been forfeited. The district court treated this motion as a civil complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the government, leading Cannon to appeal.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit, led by Judge Jay S. Bybee, ruled that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the government. The court found that Cannon's claim for the return of the cash was valid and that sovereign immunity did not bar his claim under Rule 41(g). The opinion stated, "When the government has recovered money traceable to the funds it lost, the person from whom it was seized may seek its return under Rule 41(g)." The court emphasized that the government bears the burden of proving it has a legitimate reason to retain the money.

The ruling highlighted that the government had not adequately disputed Cannon's evidence regarding the lawful origins of some of the cash. The court concluded that the district court incorrectly assumed that all the money was tainted and that Cannon had no right to its return. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings, allowing Cannon the opportunity to prove his claim.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving the return of seized property. It establishes that individuals can seek the return of cash or property that has been seized by law enforcement, even if some of that property is later found to be tainted. The decision clarifies that the government must demonstrate a legitimate reason for retaining seized property, especially when it has been mishandled or stolen by its agents.

The case also underscores the importance of accountability within law enforcement agencies. It raises questions about the practices surrounding the handling of seized assets and the need for transparency to prevent misconduct. This ruling may encourage other individuals who have had their property seized under similar circumstances to pursue claims for its return.

What's Next

The case will return to the district court for further proceedings to determine the specifics of Cannon's claim. The government may still appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision, and the outcome could influence similar cases in the future. Details about any related cases or potential appeals were not available in the court filing.