Prosecutors defend FBI seizure of equipment from Ray Martinez’s Don Felito kitchen store

Prosecutors were responding to a motion filed seeking the return of kitchen equipment seized as part of the FBI’s investigation into former VIPD Commissioner Ray Martinez.

The team was seized in mid-December of Don Felito’s Cookshop by court order, which led to a motion from the business’s attorney requesting its return. The motion argued that the seizure was improper because investigators failed to comply with rules governing civil seizure and asset forfeiture. The execution of the order was simply “an attempt to embarrass Ray Martínez, the director of Don Felitos,” argued lawyer Michael Sheesley, because Mr. Martínez “did not reach a pre-indictment agreement with the United States regarding to the alleged criminal activity.” .”

However, in response to Mr. Sheesley’s motion, the government argues that Don Felito “has no right to the return” of the seized equipment.

First, prosecutors argue that there was no “callous disregard for the constitutional rights” of either Don Felito or Mr. Martínez personally. “The seizure of the Hood System was not an arbitrary seizure. “The government sought and obtained a criminal seizure warrant supported by probable cause,” the response says, referring to the FBI special agent’s affidavit that accompanied the seizure warrant request. “The tenant does not and has not challenged the facts upon which the trial judge relied” in issuing the order, the response continues.

Furthermore, prosecutors say, the motion does not articulate any justification for why “property acquired through criminal activities” should be returned to Don Felito. In fact, the rule cited by Mr. Sheesley that apparently prevents seizure of the equipment does not apply in this case, the government argues, because the canopy system that was seized is not real property but simply a commercial item.

Second, the government argued that Don Felito’s has not demonstrated “that it is a bona fide purchaser for the value of the Hood System at any time,” nor has it demonstrated “that it ever believed that the Hood System was purchased legally.” Prosecutors suggest that a new canopy system free of any reason for government seizure can be “purchased and installed to replace the one that was removed by FBI agents and thus Cookshop’s interest in the equipment.” “It is not superior to the previous government.”

Criminal charges, the government argues, will include a notice of forfeiture if they are filed against Mr. Martinez in the future. If that were to occur, “the tenant will have an adequate opportunity to assert its ‘innocent landlord’ interest in the Hood System, at that time,” the government’s response argues.

Presiding Judge Alan Teague will now have to decide which argument – ​​that of Mr. Sheesley on behalf of Don Felito, or that of Michal Conley of the United States Attorney’s Office – will prevail in the matter.