Court Lacks Jurisdiction for Interlocutory Appeal of Rule 41 Decision

In re: Search Warrants Issued February 18, 2022: In early 2022, FBI and IRS agents started investigating Doe (apparently an attorney). They obtained three search warrants for his home, office, and vehicle, and set up a “filter protection” scheme that would protect any privileged information that had been seized. After negotiations between the agents and Doe’s lawyer broke down, Doe went to a magistrate judge to seek a stricter protocol. The magistrate judge denied the request, which it styled as a request for a preliminary injunction.

Doe sought review of the magistrate judge’s decision from the Fourth Circuit, but the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. Regardless of how Doe’s request was labelled, the court concluded that it was based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which, it noted, “are rarely final orders.” That was true in this case, as Doe’s motion sought neither the return of property nor could he show that it was “in no way tied to the prosecution” against him. The matters Doe was concerned about could be fully reviewed after a final order was entered in the criminal case (whatever that outcome might be).