In a landmark ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly condemned the actions of the Justice Department, stating that they violated the constitutional rights of Daniel Richman, a close friend of former FBI Director James Comey. The judge ordered the Justice Department to return computer files that had been retained without a warrant, which prosecutors aimed to use in a potential criminal case against Comey.
The case pertains to electronic files and communications that investigators obtained from Richman during a media leak investigation, which concluded without charging anyone. Despite the investigation's closure, the Justice Department continued to access these files this fall as it prepared to charge Comey with allegedly lying to Congress five years ago. The judge's ruling imposes significant barriers for the government’s attempts to renew indictments against Comey following the dismissal of a previous one last month.
Richman argued that the Justice Department was infringing upon his Fourth Amendment rights by keeping his records and conducting warrantless searches of those files. Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed, stating that the government was not only accountable for retaining the files but had also violated Richman’s rights by accessing them for an unrelated investigation without proper authorization.
The Justice Department contended that the request to return the files was merely a tactic to obstruct a new prosecution of Comey. However, Kollar-Kotelly firmly sided with Richman, emphasizing the importance of rights to personal property and privacy under constitutional law. In a detailed 46-page order, she directed the Justice Department to surrender Richman's files.
In her ruling, the judge posed a thought-provoking question regarding remedies available when the government unlawfully intrudes into a person's digital privacy. She suggested that one of the appropriate remedies is the return of the property to the rightful owner, which further underscores the seriousness of the Justice Department’s conduct.
While the judge required the Justice Department to return Richman’s files, she permitted them to file an electronic copy of those records under seal with the Eastern District of Virginia, where the ongoing investigation into Comey is being conducted. This implies that, should the prosecutors obtain a valid search warrant in the future, they could potentially revisit the contents of those files.
The Justice Department alleged that Comey had used Richman to leak information to the media concerning his actions during the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress regarding his authorization for an associate to serve as a source for the media. However, that indictment was dismissed due to concerns about the legality of the appointment of the prosecutor involved. This ongoing case reflects the tensions between Comey and the Trump administration, which have been well documented.
Comey has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that he did not make false statements and has referred to the Justice Department's pursuit of charges against him as a political vendetta. The saga has roots extending back to June 2017, shortly after Comey's dismissal as FBI director, when he testified about sharing a memo regarding a conversation with Trump and authorized Richman to disclose its contents to a reporter.
The case against Comey and the issues surrounding Richman's files highlight a complex intersection of legal and constitutional questions regarding privacy, media leaks, and prosecution tactics. The judgment underscores the necessity for law enforcement agencies to adhere to constitutional protections, particularly regarding digital information.
