Manafort moves to suppress evidence found in storage unit
Source: Politico
Lawyers for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort are arguing that what could be key evidence against him should be kept out of court because the FBI violated his Constitutional rights by illegally entering a storage locker belonging to Manafort's firm.
The FBI first got into the Alexandria, Va. storage unit last May with the assistance of an employee who worked at two or more of Manafort's companies, an agent told the federal magistrate judge who issued the warrant. Then, the agent used what he saw written on so-called Banker's Boxes and the fact there was a five-drawer filing cabinet to get permission to return and seize many of the records.
In a motion filed Friday night in federal court in Washington, Manafort's defense team contends that the initial entry was illegal because the employee did not not have authority to let the FBI into the locker. The defense also argues that the warrant was overbroad and that agents seizing records went beyond what limits the warrant did set.
"The FBI Agent had no legitimate basis to reasonably believe that the former employee had common authority to consent to the warrantless
initial search of the storage unit," attorneys Kevin Downing and Thomas Zehnle wrote
Read more: https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/04/07/manafort-moves-to-suppress-evidence-found-in-storage-unit-507984
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)meetings, all pointing to massive treason and corruption
ONE of them, ONE, would end any democrats career overnight
I cant take the level of hypocrisy anymore
mtngirl47
(990 posts)Since Fox isn't reporting any of this in a meaningful way, every trumper that I know thinks that Mueller and the media are just being "mean" to the treasonous slob.
harun
(11,348 posts)If there were so much as a rumor of 1% of the sh*t these people have pulled, against a Democrat as President they would already have impeached them.
msongs
(67,437 posts)Botany
(70,567 posts)The storage unit was searched after the FBI got a search warrant and after
the prior search of Manafort's home turned up evidence that led to the FBI
going to Manafort's associate's storage locker.
Mueller & company have found a gold mine in that locker.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210460348
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I have every confidence that Mueller not only anticipated such a move, he has a filing cabinet of responses to it.
Botany
(70,567 posts)BTW from what I read that the FBI upon seeing the storage locker
went and got a legal search warrant ...... warrant # 1 @ Pauli's house
led to warrant # 2 @ the storage locker.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Mueller grabbed his financial records from several sources, months ago.
And....Trump's!!!!
Trump still thinks Mueller cannot do that unless Trump gives permission, or some such thing.
But Mueller has rounded up tons of info about a lot of people, kept it quiet until he needed it months later for the "interviews"
so he could charge them with lying if they were not honest.
Botany
(70,567 posts).... he does an interview w/Mueller and company. Trump will have to talk to w/Mueller and company
and/or get a subpoena to testify in front of a grand jury. It is not his choice.
Have some fun @ these links ..... Now, Donny doesn't even know Felix Sater.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210461321
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210458618
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Did the employee have a key? Because Paul Manafort gave me a key to the place sure sounds like enough authority.
Line number 30 on page 33 of 63: "[Redacted--referring to the former employee on the lease] further provided law enforcement with a key to the lock on [the storage unit]"
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)This is not exactly a high level of jurisprudential theory at work, is it?
Do you work here?
Yeah.
You mind letting us, the FBI, in to the place so we can poke around?
No, no! By all means, be my guest. In fact, I have a key! Would you like to see the filing cabinets that my boss keeps that I find most suspicious?
Uhhh... No. No, in fact, I think I shall only view those suspicious filing cabinets labeled NO FBI ALLOWED BECAUSE OF RUSSIA until after I have secured the proper, constitutional warrant, as approved by a Federal magistrate.
Ill give Manaforts attorneys this: theyre making their billables.
C_U_L8R
(45,019 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)By the ...."Dam, your honor, we,really, really, really, don't want the prosecutor to have this evidence".
Ha!
marble falls
(57,172 posts)while acting as an agent of Monafort's company. Just as if your spouse asks the agent in for a drink of water and sees your heroin on the coffee table on his way to the kitchen.
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)The employee legally had the key and (I will guess) per the storage contract was allowed to enter the unit for any reason as deemed necessary. FBI asks to check a storage locker, he agreed.
The employee would very well have been within his rights to say "I can if you get a search warrant," and they would have, but he did not. FBI was already investigating Manafort, so makes sense that they would check out any place where items were stored.
FBI took a peek, authorized by the employee, and returned with the warrant to investigate the contents. Sounds legit to me.
marble falls
(57,172 posts)a sister and brother who are attorneys who have saved me from my own mischief.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,109 posts)Nothing more to add
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)Doesn't get to suppress on some technicality.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)NickB79
(19,258 posts)Hail Mary pass, praying for a sympathetic or stupid judge.
flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)but this could be the difference between some serious charges and some UNBEATABLE charges. The only question left is, is Paulie willing to spend the rest of his life in prison? Cuz even if he did flip, I doubt there's witness protection that could save him from the Russians.
babylonsister
(171,079 posts)questionseverything
(9,657 posts)babylonsister
(171,079 posts)highplainsdem
(49,029 posts)rocktivity
(44,577 posts)rocktivity
TomSlick
(11,108 posts)Jarqui
(10,130 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2018, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/paul-manafort-says-the-fbi-illegally-searched-a-storage?utm_term=.wdk6v2dE6#.vwJjBlRAjManafort's lawyers argue that by the time the FBI returned to get the documents, the search was already "fundamentally flawed" because the former employee of Davis Manafort Partners was not authorized to consent to a search of the unit.
Manafort's lawyers acknowledge that the "former low-level employee" was "named as an occupant on the lease agreement" in fact, he is the only occupant named on the lease. They go on to argue, however, that he was so named "simply for administrative convenience and only because he happened to be the DMP employee tasked with setting up the storage lease on DMPs behalf and moving DMPs business records into the unit."
The lawyers claim that their argument is "bolstered" by the fact that "Mr. Manafort appears on the agreement as the only person with authorized access to the storage unit," though that appears to be a misreading of the agreement. The lease has a line for listing the "Occupant's Authorized Access Persons" meaning people authorized by the occupant to access the unit. By the terms of the lease, the occupant was the "former low-level employee"; Manafort's was the only name listed as an authorized access person by the occupant.
He's the only occupant named on the lease but somehow, he does not have the ability to volunteer consent to the FBI trying to catch a guy who is allegedly working with the Russians?
Manafort must be desperate to be grasping at such apparitions of straws
herding cats
(19,567 posts)There's always a chance, no matter how remote, that something make take even when it shouldn't.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,033 posts)Legitimate businesses would put the business name on it because employees may leave and others hired.
Freethinker65
(10,036 posts)honest.abe
(8,684 posts)This may be the final key pieces of evidence to tie it all together finalize the investigation. Can't wait!
truthisfreedom
(23,152 posts)Time and resources
NamelessIowan
(2 posts)The FBI agent's affidavit attached to the motion is fascinating. (1) Talked to former employee (still on the lease and whom MOVED MATERIALS there from Paul's house) AND a current employee of one of Paul's businesses and got permission; (2) got copy of lease showing former employee on lease having access; (3) given key to facility by former employee on lease; (4) entered and saw numerous banker's boxes with writing on them with things such as "Ukraine Campaign," "Political," "Ballot Security," "Tax Returns," (5) went and got a search warrant.
There's nothing here for Paulie. His lawyers are doing what they're paid to do, so you can't fault them there, but it's not going to work. There's nothing novel here.
I can't wait to see the government's response, something along the lines of "duh." Not only was the search supported by probable cause and then a search warrant, the materials are subject to inevitable discovery AND likely should have been disclosed as part of discovery rules (you can't hide stuff and then complain when the government finds it). My two cents, for whatever they're worth (definitely less than two cents). Search and seizure doctrine is not my forte, so please correct me if I'm wrong!
byronius
(7,400 posts)Perfectly humorous.
So obviously criminal. So Incompetently Villainous.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)The concept of inevitable discovery should come into play and Manafort will lose this argument