Professional Documents
Culture Documents
US Motion To Unseal Limited Warrant Materials Re Trump Warrant
US Motion To Unseal Limited Warrant Materials Re Trump Warrant
________________________________/
this Court upon the requisite finding of probable cause, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(c)(1)-(2), at
the premises located at 1100 S. Ocean Blvd., Palm Beach, Florida 33480, a property of former
At the time the warrant was initially executed, the Department provided notice directly
to former President Trump’s counsel. The Department did not make any public statements
about the search, and the search apparently attracted little or no public attention as it was
taking place. Later that same day, former President Trump issued a public statement
acknowledging the execution of the warrant. In the days since, the search warrant and related
materials have been the subject of significant interest and attention from news media
government hereby requests that the Court unseal the Notice of Filing and its attachment
(Docket Entry 17), absent objection by former President Trump. The attachment to that
• The search warrant signed and approved by the Court on August 5, 2022, including
1
Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 2 of 5
• The redacted Property Receipt listing items seized pursuant to the search, filed with
The government will respond to the direction of the Court to provide further briefing as to
additional entries on the docket, pursuant to the schedule set by the Court.
Consistent with standard practice in this Court, the search warrant and attachments
were each filed under seal in Case No. 22-mj-8332-BER prior to the search; the Property
Receipt was filed under seal today. Former President Trump, through counsel, was provided
copies of each of these documents on August 8, 2022, as part of the execution of the search.
Argument
In These Circumstances, the Court Should Unseal the Search Warrant, Including
Attachments A and B, and the Property Receipt, Absent Objection from the Former
President.
The press and the public enjoy a qualified right of access to criminal and judicial
proceedings and the judicial records filed therein. See, e.g., Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480
F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d
1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). The unsealing of judicial materials pursuant to the common-law
right of access “requires a balancing of competing interests.” Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at
1311. “In balancing the public interest in accessing court documents against a party’s interest
in keeping the information confidential, courts consider, among other factors, whether
allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree
of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will
1
The redactions in Docket Entry 17 remove the names of law enforcement personnel who executed
the search from the unsealed materials. For ease of reference, the documents the government seeks
to unseal, in the form to be made available to the public, have been filed under seal as Docket Entry
Number 17.
2
Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 3 of 5
officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. 2 Given the intense public interest presented by a
search of a residence of a former President, the government believes these factors favor
unsealing the search warrant, its accompanying Attachments A and B, and the Property
Although the government initially asked, and this Court agreed, to file the warrant and
Attachments A and B under seal, releasing those documents at this time would not “impair
court functions,” including the government’s ability to execute the warrant, given that the
warrant has already been executed. See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. Furthermore, on the day
that the search was executed, former President Trump issued a public statement that provided
the first public confirmation that the search had occurred. Subsequently, the former
President’s representatives have given additional statements to the press concerning the
search, including public characterizations of the materials sought. See, e.g., F.B.I Search of
Trump’s Home Pushes Long Conflict Into Public View, N.Y. Times (Aug. 9, 2022), available at
lawyer and aide to Mr. Trump who said she received a copy of the search warrant, told one
interviewer that the agents were looking for ‘presidential records or any possibly classified
material.’”). As such, the occurrence of the search and indications of the subject matter
2
In addition, the First Amendment provides a basis for the press and the public’s “right of access to
criminal trial proceedings.” Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1310. However, this Circuit has not
addressed whether the First Amendment right of access applies to sealed search warrant materials.
See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, No. 12-61499-CIV, 2013 WL 3821625, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2023)
(“this Court has found no Eleventh Circuit decisions addressing whether a First Amendment right of
access extends to sealed search-warrant affidavits, particularly at the preindictment stage”).
3
Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 4 of 5
This matter plainly “concerns public officials or public concerns,” Romero, 480 F.3d at
1246, as it involves a law enforcement action taken at the property of the 45th President of
the United States. The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred
under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing. That said, the former
President should have an opportunity to respond to this Motion and lodge objections,
including with regards to any “legitimate privacy interests” or the potential for other “injury”
if these materials are made public. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. To that end, the government
will furnish counsel for the former President with a copy of this Motion.
Conclusion
This Court should unseal Docket Entry 17, subject to the presentation of
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jay I. Bratt
JAY I. BRATT
CHIEF
Counterintelligence and Export Control
Section
National Security Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Illinois Bar No. 6187361
202.233.0986
[email protected]
4
Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 5 of 5
Certificate of Service
transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing.
5
Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 18-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 1 of 1
________________________________/
PROPOSED ORDER
The United States of America, having applied to this Court for an Order to Unseal
Limited Warrant Materials, filed on August 11, 2022, and the Court, having reviewed the
motion [and the responses filed to the motion] and being fully advised in the premises, it is
hereby
ORDERED that:
Any other warrant-related materials shall remain SEALED pending any further order of the
Court.
of August 2022.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE