313 F. Supp. 3d 213
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Storage unit (Unit 3013, 370 Holland Lane, Alexandria) was leased in the name of a Manafort employee who retained a key and signed a written consent form permitting FBI entry; Manafort was listed on the lease as an "Authorized Access Person."
- The employee told FBI he had moved boxes of Manafort business records and a heavy five-drawer filing cabinet into the unit (last additions ~spring 2016) and that the materials remained there.
- On May 26, 2017 the employee unlocked the unit, allowed an agent to look at the interior (without opening boxes/drawers), and signed consent to permit a complete search; the agent described exterior labels on boxes in the ensuing warrant affidavit.
- Agents secured the unit, obtained a search warrant the next day, and executed it; the warrant authorized seizure of records related to alleged violations of FBAR (31 U.S.C. §§5314, 5322), FARA (22 U.S.C. §618), and false tax returns (26 U.S.C. §7206(a)).
- Manafort moved to suppress arguing (1) the initial warrantless entry/inspection tainted the affidavit and warrant, (2) the warrant was overbroad/lacked a date range, and (3) agents exceeded the warrant. The court denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Manafort) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Third‑party consent to initial entry | Employee who signed lease, had key, and gave written consent had actual/apparent authority to permit entry. | Employee only acted at Manafort's direction and lacked authority to consent; initial entry was unlawful. | Entry lawful: lessee/occupant had actual authority; alternatively, agent reasonably believed he had authority (apparent authority). |
| Whether warrant was tainted by the agent's warrantless observations | Even if initial observations were excluded, the affidavit still contained ample untainted information (employee's statements, lease, history) to establish probable cause. | Agent's descriptions of box labels and interior tainted the affidavit and were necessary to establish probable cause. | Probable cause would exist without the challenged interior observations; warrant stands. |
| Particularity / overbreadth of warrant | Warrant targeted records "relating to" specific statutes (FBAR, FARA, false tax returns), so broad language ("any and all financial records") must be read in that limiting context and is sufficiently particular given financial-crimes paper trail. | Paragraphs (e.g., "any and all financial records") and lack of a date range render the warrant overbroad and insufficiently particular. | Warrant was sufficiently particular and not unconstitutionally overbroad given the targeted statutes and investigative needs; date limits preferable but not required here. |
| Applicability of good‑faith (Leon) exception | Even if warrant were overbroad, agents reasonably relied on a magistrate‑signed warrant; evidence should not be excluded. | Warrant defects (broad scope/no date limits) made reliance unreasonable; Leon inapplicable. | Leon applies: agents' reliance on magistrate‑approved warrant was objectively reasonable; suppression not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third‑party with common authority may consent to a search)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (search valid if officers reasonably believe third party has authority—apparent authority)
- United States v. Peyton, 745 F.3d 546 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (defining common authority as mutual use/joint access for most purposes)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (warrant valid despite some erroneously obtained information if untainted facts support probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reliance on magistrate‑issued warrants)
- United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579 (9th Cir. 1997) (lessee/associate renting units may assume risk and have authority to consent)
- United States v. Trotter, 483 F.3d 694 (10th Cir. 2007) (lessee's active use/rental gave sufficient relationship to permit consent)
- United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reference to overly broad federal statutes may fail to limit warrant scope)