In re: In the Matter of the Search of Fair Finance v.
692 F.3d 424
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Federal agents sought a search warrant in Akron, Ohio, for Fair Finance Company as part of a suspected Ponzi scheme.
- The magistrate granted the warrant and sealed the warrant application, affidavit, warrant, sealing motion, and docket.
- The search was executed on November 24, 2009 and the sealed materials were returned and kept in the sealed file.
- On December 17, 2009, two newspapers filed a motion to unseal the affidavits, warrants, and related sealed documents.
- The district court denied the motion on August 10, 2010; the newspapers appealed on September 9, 2010.
- After indictment, the government moved to unseal certain non-affidavit items; some items were unsealed in 2011–2012, while the affidavit and docket remained sealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a First Amendment right of access to search warrant documents | Newspapers claim a First Amendment right to access under experience-and-logic. | No such right exists for search warrant materials post-execution. | No First Amendment right of access to search warrant documents. |
| Whether the sealing order was properly articulated and reviewable | District court failed to articulate sufficient findings supporting sealing. | Magistrate adopted government reasons; articulation adequate for review. | Proper procedure; no reversible error in articulation. |
| Whether the sealing order could be indefinite or should be limited to a period or until further order | Sealing was indefinable and improper. | Sealing until further order is permissible and recognized. | No error; sealing until further order appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (open criminal proceedings protect public discussion of government)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (experience-and-logic test for access to proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (continued application of access principles to different stages)
- Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002) (broadening access beyond trials to other proceedings)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (limits on access to documents in investigative context)
- In re EyeCare Physicians of America, 100 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 1996) (limits of access to warrant-related materials; balancing harms)
- Goetz, 886 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (articulation of sealing standards in search warrant context)
- Beckham, 789 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1986) (common law right of access to judicial documents; balancing standard)