Manafort Loses Fight Over Storage Unit Search In Virginia Case

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort leaves the United States Court House after his indicement hearing in Washington, DC on October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Keith Lane/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort leaves federal court, October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the inv... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort leaves federal court, October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election. (Photo by Keith Lane/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A federal judge in Alexandria this week denied a request by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to throw out evidence obtained in a May 2017 search of his storage unit for the Virginia trial.

In a 23-page opinion issued on Monday and posted publicly on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis said there “are no grounds for suppression of the evidence recovered from the May 27, 2017 search of the storage unit, and defendant’s motion to suppress must be denied.”

Manafort made a similar request in the case brought against him by special counsel Robert Mueller in D.C., and the judge there also rejected his arguments.

Manafort had objected to the search, executed just days after Mueller took over the Justice Department’s Russia probe, because he took issue with an FBI agent entering the unit on May 26 without a warrant. The agent was let in by Manafort employee Alex Trusko who had a key and who told the agent he moved boxes for Manafort to the unit. Though Trusko’s name was on unit’s the lease, Manafort argued that Trusko did not have the authority to open the storage unit for the agent, Jeff Pfeiffer.

Manafort also argued that, even if the employee did have the authority, the warrant the FBI then sought after Pfeiffer entered and took photos in the unit was too broad.

Ellis on Tuesday rejected that argument as well.

“Trusko, defendant’s employee, leased the storage unit, regularly accessed the unit to unpack defendant’s business records, and retained a key to the unit. Thus, Trusko had common authority over the storage unit and validly consented to Special Agent Pfeiffer’s May 26, 2017 search of the storage unit,” Ellis wrote. “The May 27, 2017 warrant was also sufficiently particular given the nature of the alleged crimes to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. And even assuming Special Agent Pfeiffer’s warrant was overbroad, the executing agents reasonably relied on the magistrate judge’s issuance of the warrant to conduct the search and executed the search in a manner consistent with the terms of the warrant.”

While Ellis has been tough in his questioning of the special counsel’s team, this is the second time he’s ruled against Manafort, having also denied his request that the entire case be dismissed.

Manafort is facing charges that include bank fraud and tax fraud in Virginia. He has pleaded not guilty in that case, as well as in the case Mueller brought against him in D.C. The trial in Virginia is slated to begin at the end of July.

Read the full opinion on the search warrant below:

Notable Replies

  1. The only thing surprising about this opinion is its length. This was not a difficult ruling.

  2. I don’t think anyone is surprised. I have seen a lot closer evidentiary questions go the prosecutor’s way.

  3. Though Trusko’s name was on unit’s the lease, Manafort argued that Trusko did not have the authority to open the storage unit for the agent, Jeff Pfeiffer.

    That’s a loser argument, as law students learn in the early weeks of crim pro.

  4. These guys are quite the amateurs. Manafort and Cohen know they were in deep shit and a high line pro was after them. So why have shit in a storage shed…or at your home that will sink you? That shed should have been jammed full of exculpatory stuff and nothing more. A storage shed full of incriminating shit? A home and office with millions of incriminating docs? And that near a year after the investigations began. On just that I’d have to think Mueller’s is going to hammer these clowns and not break a sweat doing it.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

21 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for rob_beatty_walters Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for sooner Avatar for mymy Avatar for cervantes Avatar for dark_hawk_98 Avatar for kirkbross Avatar for sparrowhawk Avatar for kitty Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for riverstreet Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for gharlane Avatar for alana Avatar for katscherger Avatar for maximus Avatar for mbayrob Avatar for drtv Avatar for godwit Avatar for outis Avatar for rascal_crone

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: