>For one thing, a state grand jury didn’t indict him on racketeering charges until late December 2014, more than four and a half years after the raids on Dr. La

>For one thing, a state grand jury didn’t indict him on racketeering charges until late December 2014, more than four and a half years after the raids on Dr. Laskar’s home and office in May 2010. The delay in indictment aside, it appears they've been holding his personal devices hostage for nearly seven years now. >He had previously remained silent to avoid antagonizing prosecutors, who still hold family items with sentimental value, like a laptop with the only copies of childhood photographs of Dr. Laskar’s three daughters and an unfinished novel by his wife. Theoretically, not speaking up offers the prosecutors more incentive to retain possession, especially if they know that's the reason for the silence. Device seizure without prompt imaging and return of the hardware is bullshit in all but the most grievous cases (e.g. terrorism). While many people who have been through extended litigation or criminal proceedings just want it to end, it seems like this guy was railroaded pretty hard. Does he have cause to sue the state, university, or both?