A two-year-old order just released, the District of Maryland holds that the government\u2019s generalized assertions of needs for secrecy of search warrant materials were insufficient. The investigation seemed over, and the target has a right to know why the government seized his stuff. The government has to provide a redacted affidavit now. In re 14416 Coral Gables Way, 946 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.Md. 2011):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Redacting the Affidavit<\/p>\n
Even if the government’s interests were found to be compelling, “the government would still have to demonstrate that no less restrictive means, such as redaction, are available.” Search Warrants Issued on Apr. 26, 2004, 353 F. Supp. 2d at 592. Redaction is able to address “both the interests of [the Property Owner] and the government.” Id. This Court has carefully reviewed all of the materials submitted by both parties and believes that a limited redaction serves the competing interests of both the movants and the government. Accordingly, the Court has redacted certain limited information regarding the investigation — some unknown to Mr. Kohli — and which information, if known, might interfere with completion of the investigation.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Gurpreet Kohli apparently has lost his job of many years. The residence of the Kohlis has been subject to a sweeping search, including seizure of computers and cell phones, and broad categories of documents. The courts recognize that the subjects of a warrant have a right to know the basis for such an invasion of privacy that may only be abridged on demonstration of compelling interests. The government has not made that demonstration. The government is to produce the redacted affidavit, Appendix A, to movants on or before April 5, 2011, unless an appeal is taken.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading