323 F. Supp. 3d 768
E.D. Va.2018Background
- On May 26, 2017 FBI Special Agent Pfeiffer interviewed Alex Trusko, a longtime personal assistant/employee of Manafort-related businesses, who said he leased and had a key to a Public Storage unit that contained Manafort business records and had moved boxes and a filing cabinet there at Manafort's direction.
- Pfeiffer confirmed Trusko's status as the lessee/occupant via the facility lease, occupant form, insurance addendum, and customer journal, all listing Trusko as occupant and Manafort as an authorized user.
- Trusko signed an FBI consent-to-search form, unlocked the unit, and Pfeiffer made a cursory viewing of bankers' boxes and a filing cabinet (did not open boxes).
- DOJ then sought and obtained a warrant (May 27, 2017) with Attachment A (place) and Attachment B listing categories of business, tax, foreign‑account, and related records to be seized.
- Executing agents seized only documents responsive to Attachment B (five sets from the filing cabinet and four sets from bankers' boxes) and prepared an inventory listing categories rather than itemizing each document.
- Manafort moved to suppress the storage‑unit evidence arguing (1) Trusko lacked authority to consent to the May 26 viewing, (2) the warrant was overbroad/lacked particularity (no time limits), and (3) executing agents exceeded the warrant scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manafort) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of May 26 warrantless entry/viewing | Trusko lacked authority to consent; entry unconstitutional | Trusko had actual and apparent authority; consent was knowing and voluntary | Trusko had common authority (lessee, key, regular access); consent valid; alternatively officer reasonably believed consent valid |
| Whether tainted initial viewing vitiates later warrant | Warrant application relied on fruits of unconstitutional search so evidence should be suppressed | Affidavit contained sufficient untainted information (Trusko statements/documents) to establish probable cause | Even if viewing invalid, affidavit included sufficient untainted evidence; warrant valid under Karo/Wright principles |
| Particularity/overbreadth of May 27 warrant (no time limits) | Warrant overbroad for failing to limit seizure to relevant time period | Warrant sufficiently describes records by relation to specified crimes; time limits unnecessary given tax/bank fraud context; good‑faith reliance if facially deficient | Warrant sufficiently particular in context; even if overbroad, good‑faith exception applies (officers reasonably relied on magistrate's warrant) |
| Execution and inventory compliance with warrant/Rule 41 | Agents seized virtually everything and inventory unspecific, exceeding warrant | Agents seized only items responsive to Attachment B; listing storage containers (boxes/cabinet) is acceptable practice under Rule 41 | Execution was consistent with warrant; inventory practice lawful; no basis for suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party with common authority can consent to search)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (consent valid where officers reasonably believe third party has authority)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (warrant upheld if affidavit contains sufficient untainted evidence)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (clarifies application of Leon good‑faith rule)
- United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2013) (particularity requirement: items may be described by their relation to designated crimes)