{"id":62474,"date":"2025-12-13T04:59:25","date_gmt":"2025-12-13T09:59:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62474"},"modified":"2025-12-13T15:35:59","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T20:35:59","slug":"d-d-c-electronic-evidence-seized-in-one-investigation-of-comey-cannot-be-searched-years-later-for-evidence-in-another-return-ordered-under-rule-41g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62474","title":{"rendered":"D.D.C.: Electronic evidence seized in one investigation of Comey cannot be searched years later for evidence in another; return ordered under Rule 41(g)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

When the government retained electronic evidence obtained from a lawyer under a warrant, concluded the investigation, and then, years later, searched the information again in a different investigation, the remedy here was order of immediate return to the lawyer and barring its use elsewhere. Richman v. United States<\/a>, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256197 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

When the Government violates the Fourth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by sweeping up a broad swath of a person\u2019s electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has ended, and later sifting through those files without a warrant to obtain evidence against someone else, what remedy is available to the victim of the Government\u2019s unlawful intrusion? Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides one such remedy: a court may order the Government to return the files to their rightful owner. This case calls for that remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioner Daniel Richman, an attorney and law professor, challenges the Government\u2019s retention and use of certain files that the Government copied from his personal computer and online accounts between 2017 and 2020 in connection with investigations of potentially improper disclosures by James B. Comey, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\u201cFBI\u201d). Petitioner Richman argues that the Government\u2019s ongoing retention and use of these files violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. He therefore seeks an order directing the Government to return the files to him. Petitioner Richman also applied for a temporary restraining order to limit the Government\u2019s ability to use the files at issue while this matter is pending. This Court partially granted Petitioner Richman\u2019s application for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo as it awaited a formal response from the Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Government has now appeared in this case, and it opposes Petitioner Richman\u2019s request for return of property and moves to dissolve the Court\u2019s temporary restraining order. The Government argues that Petitioner Richman\u2019s motion amounts to nothing more than an improper collateral attack on the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Comey and that return of property to Petitioner Richman is not an available remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upon consideration of the parties\u2019 submissions, the relevant legal authority, and the entire present record, this Court agrees with Petitioner Richman that the Government\u2019s retention and use of his files has violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the Government\u2019s retention of an \u201cimage\u201d of Petitioner Richman\u2019s personal computer\u2014that is, a complete copy of all the files stored on the computer, including backups of his phone and tablet\u2014and its retention of related materials from his online accounts for years after the conclusion of the relevant investigation is an ongoing unreasonable seizure. This seizure is unreasonable because the Government\u2019s warrantless search of the files earlier this year reveals that the Government has not implemented effective safeguards to protect copies of the files from unlawful access while they remain in the Government\u2019s custody and control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also agrees with Petitioner Richman that the Government\u2019s conduct reflects a \u201ccallous disregard\u201d for his constitutional rights, and each of the other prerequisites to this Court\u2019s exercise of equitable jurisdiction to order the return of property are satisfied. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). Because Petitioner Richman is entitled to return of his property as a remedy for the violation of his constitutional rights, the Court is unpersuaded by the Government\u2019s contention that his motion must be denied based on its potential collateral effects on the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Comey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, to remedy the Government\u2019s violations of Petitioner Richman\u2019s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court shall GRANT Petitioner Richman\u2019s [1] Motion for Return of Property and ORDER the Government to return to Petitioner Richman the image of his computer that was made in 2017; any files obtained from his Columbia University email account(s) or his Apple iCloud account(s) in 2019 or 2020 that are in the Government\u2019s possession; any copies of the image or files obtained from Petitioner Richman\u2019s email or iCloud accounts that are in the Government\u2019s possession; and any materials directly obtained or extracted from those files that are in the Government\u2019s possession (collectively, the \u201ccovered materials\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to \u201cprotect access to\u201d the files at issue and preserve their availability for lawful \u201cuse in later proceedings,\u201d see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), and as an exercise of the Court\u2019s equitable discretion to fashion a remedy that is appropriate under all the circumstances, the Court shall further ORDER that, before returning the covered materials to Petitioner Richman, the Government may create one complete electronic copy of those materials and deposit that copy, under seal, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which shall have supervisory authority over access to this material, for future access pursuant to a lawful search warrant and judicial order. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia may then exercise its discretion to decide whether to allow Petitioner Richman an opportunity to move to quash any such warrant before it is executed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court shall further ORDER the Attorney General of the United States or her designee to certify, no later than 4:00 p.m. ET on Monday, December 15, 2025, that the Government has (1) returned the covered materials to Petitioner Richman; (2) not retained any additional copy or copies of the covered materials; (3) not provided any copy or copies of the covered materials to any other person, except for one copy that may be filed, under seal, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia consistent with this Court\u2019s order; and (4) not otherwise shared, disseminated, or disclosed the covered materials to any other person without first seeking and obtaining leave of this Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the Court\u2019s rulings will provide permanent relief for the injuries asserted in Petitioner Richman\u2019s [9] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without preventing the Government from conducting any future investigation or prosecution, the Court shall DENY AS MOOT both the remaining requests for relief in Petitioner Richman\u2019s [9] Motion and the Government\u2019s [12] Motion to Dissolve the Court\u2019s Temporary Restraining Order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WaPo: Judge orders return of evidence against Comey, citing constitutional concerns<\/a> (Dec. 12, 2025)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When the government retained electronic evidence obtained from a lawyer under a warrant, concluded the investigation, and then, years later, searched the information again in a different investigation, the remedy here was order of immediate return to the lawyer and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,7,67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computer-searches","category-overbreadth","category-rule-41g-return-of-property"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62474"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62484,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62474\/revisions\/62484"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}