I had to look it up too before posting.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
But isn’t the AG NY’s action a civil matter? Donny invoked the fifth over 500 times in his deposition there.
I believe he maintained that, while it was a civil matter, there was the possibility of criminal charges and that testimony under oath would be considered evidence in a criminal trial
At least he’s thinking ahead for once.
But pleading the Fifth CAN be used against you in s civil trial. So he did himself no favors.
Not sure I’ve seen this posted yet:
I love that. Trump has expended so much money and so much energy trying to fight this off and now the FBI is just going to turn around and do it to him again. And this time he might not be able to judge-shop.
I also wonder if the same lawyers who are working on the Mar-A-Lago case would be willing to take on double or triple duty making the same dumb arguments in other jurisdictions, presuming they are even licensed there. I guess Trump has that one lawyer he paid 3 million up front to just so he could bench the guy when he suggested doing something reasonable.
The first round of privilege claims has been completed and Dearie has issued his order. All of Filter B is to be returned to Trump (Filter Team to maintain control copies). A significant portion of Filter A & C to be sent to the Case Team as not privileged. Trump is claiming privilege (not specified as to attorney/client or executive) on 2 folders of documents, the Presidential Call sheets, and other miscellaneous documents. Next hearing is 10/18, next report 10/20.
The order itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.138.0.pdf
I have yet to find an online copy of the leaked docket record tying the Bates numbers to actual documents - although apparently The Guardian has.
Yep. And he likely had to go back into the Judges chambers and explain why.
Glad to see they are asking people about this. Like I said upthread, I can’t believe that all kinds of people haven’t seen this stuff. He’s got it laying around, unsecured in any way. Not to mention he probably waves it in front of people to impress them.
Considering his past lawyer use, he’ll hang on to them as long as they can be used before various bar associations yank their credentials.
That’s not the actual argument, though. The question has always been what actually counts as sufficient evidence for said warrant. And the current state of that argument is that someone brought up an actual case that appeared to contradict your claim of where the lines are.
As a lawyer, I expect you to be right in the broad strokes. But, as a Canadian lawyer talking outside your jurisdiction, it makes sense that you might not have all the nuances quite correct.
Or it’s possible that, we, as non-lawyers, have missed something you consider extremely obvious.
Yes, I read that case, and I read the supporting affidavit, and it was clear that we had different interpretations of it. I didn’t think it was worth it to go through a detailed analysis of an unrelated case and affidavit; would have been a hijack to this thread.
I would simply say that I’m not the least puzzled why there have not been searches of Donny’s other properties, because that fits my understanding of the need for specific evidence relating to the place to be searched.
But if I were suspected of illegal activity, wouldn’t all of the homes that I own be a reasonable place to look for that evidence?
Especially if the activity I am suspected of partaking upon is that of hiding documents that you know I have, and if you don’t find them in one of my homes, then it seems entirely reasonable to go look in my other homes as well.
Here’s a summary of the warrant requirement from the Legal Information Institute, a non-profit law source run by Cornell Law School:
(My bolding)
It’s not enough to say “Donny had stolen docs at his place in Florida, so we should be able to search his place in New York.” The probable cause requirement says that the officer has to provide probable cause that stolen docs are at Donny’s place in New York. That must be demonstrated by personal observations of someone, not just “reasonable inference”. Someone has to give sworn information that there are stolen docs at his place in New York.
The particularity requirement has to explain in detail the specific place to be searched, what the LEO is looking for, where, and why. That too has to be backed by probable cause: the LEO has to provide sufficient reason to the judge why they should be able to search the suggested premises: is it one room, is it specified rooms, is it one safe, is it an entire floor in a building, is it the entire building? The LEO has to justify what particular areas they want to search and why. It can’t just be a “reasonable inference”. There has to be sworn material in the supporting affidavit to demonstrate it.
Since Illinois v Gates, the Supreme Court uses a “totality of circumstances” test, so that the judge magistrate is to consider all of the factors combined, rather than a sort of “check-list” approach. The LEO has to satisfy the judge magistrate that taking all the sworn information together, there is probable cause in relation to the particular place to be searched.
See also US v Grubbs:
“In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item they believe is already located there, the magistrate’s determination that there is probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be there when the warrant is executed.”
What some of us are saying would have been possible is to say “We know Donny was hiding stolen docs. People who are hiding documents typically keep the in their homes. He was using Mar-A-Lago, Trump Tower, etc. as full or part time residences and had the ability to use them to hide docs, so we can search.” I don’t think the case-law you’ve cited is clear on whether that is good enough.
If it’s true that there are more documents missing from Trump’s administration, and we already know he was keeping documents and refusing to return them all when asked, does that change anything?
Or do we still need some of his employees to say they saw classified documents at trump tower or wherever?
The fact is that the DOJ hasn’t gotten a warrant to search those properties yet. So what do you think is happening? You’ve found some legal argument that the DOJ hasn’t thought of? The DOJ has no interest in looking for documents elsewhere?
Or maybe Northern_Piper is right and the DOJ doesn’t have sufficient probable cause at this time. If you think he’s wrong, then explain the lack of a warrant.
I’m assuming the DOJ is working toward more warrants or something else, whatever they think they need, and it may take a long-ass time, plus we will not know about it until after something happens.
For all we know, they are writing letters asking him to return more missing documents.
I dunno what all the fuss is about. Even if he did have classified or archive documents in New York if he had any sense they’re long gone by now.
Oh, wait…
So let’s say, for the sake of argument, they do get an eyewitness whistleblower who makes a sufficiently reliable disclosure to DOJ that there is another document stash at Trump Tower, similar to M-a-L, that another warrant is secured and another search bears similar fruit.
Is there a point at which a pattern is meaningfully established such that a judge might be willing to approve a more general search, even without specific witness information for a location of interest? Or is it true that, even after a second, third, or however many residences, offices, etc. are shown to be storehouses for Trump’s ill-gotten shrines to his own ego, each newly targeted location must be pre-qualified with specific cause?