223510P.pdf   09/22/2023  Michael Lindell  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-3510
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case -Injunctions. Lindell's phone was seized as part of a federal 
   investigation into the publication of forensic images of election software 
   used in the 2020 election in Mesa County, Colorado. Lindell argues the 
   investigation violates his First Amendment rights and that the seizure of 
   his phone violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against general 
   warrants. Lindell's litigation is a tactic to, at a minimum, interfere 
   with and, at most, enjoin a criminal investigation and ultimately hamper 
   federal prosecution related to his, or others', public disclosure of 
   forensic images of the County's election management servers; affording 
   such relief is not only contrary to the purposes of a preliminary 
   injunction , it would open the door to a deluge of similar litigation by 
   those under criminal investigation, and the district court did not err in 
   refusing to enter the requested injunction; nor can Lindell show that the 
   exercise of equitable jurisdiction over the return of his seized phone 
   data is warranted; Lindell had no claim based on the manner and method of 
   execution of the search warrant for his phone; claim that the warrant was 
   an invalid general warrant rejected; nor could Lindell show irreparable 
   injury from the seizure; nevertheless, the government has no right to hold 
   on to property that is not contraband indefinitely; on the record before 
   the court, the court could not determine whether the government can 
   reasonably justify its continued refusal to return the phone, and the 
   matter is remanded to the district court with direction to hold a prompt 
   hearing and balance the government's interests in retaining the phone and 
   all of its data against Lindell's right to return of the phone and data. 
   Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in part.