Renato Mariotti
Verified account
@renato_mariotti
29m29 minutes ago
More
1/ Late last night, Manafort’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by the FBI from a search of his storage unit. Here is the full motion:
www.documentcloud.org/documents/4433460-Suppress.html
2/ A motion to suppress is a motion filed by a defendant to prevent the government from using evidence obtained in an unconstitutional manner. Manafort is challenging an FBI agent’s search of his storage unit without a search warrant.
3/ Generally the government needs a warrant to search private areas. One exception is when someone who appears to have authority over the area consents to the search. One problem for Manafort is a person who is on the lease consented to the search.
4/ What matters is not whether he actually had authority to consent to the search. The legal test is whether it was reasonable for the FBI to believe he had authority to consent to the search. That’s a problem for Manafort because, on its face, he seems like he had authority.
5/ Manafort’s argument that he didn’t have discovery largely turns on the man’s status as a low-level employee. Manafort also argues that since the FBI only looked inside the unit and didn’t fully search it until obtaining a warrant the next day, they knew they had no authority.
6/ That brings us to the bigger problem with Manafort’s argument. The FBI came back the next day with a search warrant. His attorneys try to spin this as a way to show that the entry into the unit was unlawful, but it suggests Mueller was careful and it undercuts his claim.
7/ Because Mueller got a search warrant for the full search, Manafort’s argument is very narrow. He’s just saying that the FBI’s initial look into the storage unit was unlawful because the consent wasn’t valid, and that the FBI relied on the look to get the warrant.
8/ Unfortunately for Manafort, there is an exception to the warrant rule called “inevitable discovery.” If the government would have found the evidence even without the unlawful search, he loses. There are a couple of reasons to think that applies here.
9/ First, the FBI already knew about the storage unit before conducting that look. Second, and more importantly, the man who gave them consent already told them what was inside! So all the look did was confirm that what the man said was true.
10/ If Mueller can show (by a 51 percent standard, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”) that he would have obtained the warrant without that quick look by the FBI agent, Manafort loses his motion. (That is separate from consent, which is another way that Manafort loses.)
11/ So the likelihood of success by Manafort is low, which is often the case when defendants file motions. This isn’t a bad move by his team, but it’s likely unsuccessful. They also challenge the search warrant itself, which is even more unlikely to be successful.
12/ Courts want law enforcement to obtain warrants, so if a judge reviews the evidence and signs a warrant, it usually holds up. The burden for the defendant is very high. Usually there needs to be a false statement or omission that would have caused the judge not to sign.
13/ All in all, this is a fairly typical defense motion to a small portion of the evidence against Manafort. It is very unlikely to be successful but it was worth making if he can afford the legal fees to do so, given the high stakes for him. /end