United States v. Sealed Search Warrants
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15905
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- IRS agents executed three pre‑indictment search warrants in March–April 2016 at Justin Smith’s business hangar, home, and storage unit; probable‑cause affidavits were sealed.
- Smith moved under Rule 41 to unseal the supporting affidavits; motions were consolidated before the magistrate judge.
- Magistrate partially granted relief, ordered the Government to propose redactions, then issued its own narrower redactions and planned to unseal after 14 days if unopposed.
- The Government objected; the district court sustained the objections and kept the affidavits fully sealed, finding the investigation would be compromised and expressing deference to concerns like those in Ninth Circuit precedent.
- Smith appealed; no indictment has been filed. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court’s factual findings were too conclusory for meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to appeal | Appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1291 because order conclusively denies access to affidavits and is not part of an ongoing prosecution | Orders denying pre‑indictment motions to unseal are interlocutory under Di Bella and not immediately appealable | Fifth Circuit: jurisdiction exists under Di Bella exception—no prosecution pending and Smith does not seek suppression; appealable |
| Whether common‑law qualified right of access extends to pre‑indictment warrant materials | Yes; common‑law right applies and must be assessed case‑by‑case balancing public access against nondisclosure interests | Prefer limiting or denying common‑law access pre‑indictment (aligning with Ninth Circuit) because disclosure can jeopardize investigations | Fifth Circuit: common‑law qualified right can extend to pre‑indictment warrant materials and should be decided case‑by‑case by district courts |
| Proper standard for assessing access | District court should apply balancing test (public access presumption vs. harm) and make specific factual findings | Government emphasized potential harm and argued courts should defer and allow warrants to remain sealed to protect investigations | Court: adopt Fifth Circuit approach—exercise discretion, balance interests, and require articulated findings sufficient for appellate review |
| Sufficiency of district court’s order | District court failed to make detailed, case‑specific findings—order was conclusory and must be vacated/remanded for factual findings | District court’s conclusion that disclosure would "substantially" compromise the investigation justified sealing; line‑by‑line review is burdensome | Fifth Circuit: district court abused discretion by issuing bare conclusion; vacated and remanded for specific factual findings (may be filed under seal if needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes a qualified common‑law right of access to judicial records)
- Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 (1962) (pre‑indictment suppression/return rulings generally not immediately appealable; limited exception for purely return‑of‑property claims)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir.) (pre‑indictment warrant materials not subject to common‑law access during ongoing investigation)
- Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60 (4th Cir.) (common‑law access to warrant affidavits evaluated case‑by‑case; require specific findings)
- S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845 (5th Cir.) (district courts must balance public’s common‑law right of access against nondisclosure interests and articulate reasons when sealing)
- In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569 (8th Cir.) (case‑specific approach to unsealing warrant affidavits in First Amendment context)
- United States v. Pantelidis, 335 F.3d 226 (3d Cir.) (jurisdiction to hear appeal of pre‑indictment return order under Di Bella exception)
- Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Dev. v. United States, 624 F.3d 685 (5th Cir.) (reversed sealing where no countervailing government interest justified secrecy)
- Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir.) (discusses procedural path for obtaining sealed affidavits to support civil claims; does not mandate unsealing)