Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 10:03 AM Aug 2022

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree a/k/a Dot Those I's

Why do you make sure you have all of your ducks in a row when you serve a search warrant? Because of the doctrine known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. That's a concept rooted in the 4th amendment (and even more strongly embodied in the state constitutions of many of the original 13 states) that says a prosecutor can't use improperly obtained evidence in a trial against you. In fact, not only can't they use that evidence, they can't use any additional evidence it may lead to. So, when you're following a thread, particularly at the beginning, you need to be certain that you have probable cause for any searches or siezures you conduct because the entire prosecution can be derailed by a single mistake. For example, an improper auto stop that leads to a search of a car that turns up a gun in the trunk that has fingerprints on it that tie the gun to the driver and to a murder. Guess what, if there was no probable cause for the driver to be pulled over, anything found in the search of the car or where the evidence found in that search led to cannot be used in the prosecution.

Why do I bring this up? Because there is no doubt that the FBI and the DOJ had their I's dotted and their T's crossed when they applied for and executed the search warrant on Mar a Lago. It may have been tedious-even onorus- for them to patiently and methodically get to the point where they asked for the warrant, but, particularly under these circumstances, they knew exactly what they were doing and had back-up for everything done. If that wasn't the case, just one slip-up at this stage of the investigation could have blown-up any case they were pursuing.

I can't wait to see the warrant. Not just because of the details of what was siezed, but because there's going to be an affidavit (maybe more than one) attached that lays out why they wanted it and what the underlying probable cause for obtaining the warrant was. It may include other evidence already obtained, witness statements, even the revelation of a "confidential informant". One thing I'm certain of is that they did their homework beforehand. One thing it gives me hope for is that Trump is screwed.

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree a/k/a Dot Those I's (Original Post) Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 OP
Are we certain the affidavit(s) will be released? OneGrassRoot Aug 2022 #1
Not certain, but I would think the entire filing is fair game Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 #3
Release of the affidavit could make the informant wnylib Aug 2022 #5
Interesting... OneGrassRoot Aug 2022 #7
I am not a legal expert, but wnylib Aug 2022 #11
They sure could "reverse engineer" the identity of any C.I. Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 #9
That bit of info would surely be redacted. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2022 #15
No the application and affidavit will not be released today. It will be released maybe Bev54 Aug 2022 #6
I Agree.... Laxman Aug 2022 #2
Is it up to Rebl2 Aug 2022 #4
I'd say yes Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 #8
Let me put this here for informational purposes Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 #10
Thank you! n/t OneGrassRoot Aug 2022 #12
Yes, thank you! liberalla Aug 2022 #14
I truly don't expect to see this information. lark Aug 2022 #13
I worry about DOJ holdovers in a position to fatally sabotage the prosecution. Even a clerk/typist. Marcuse Aug 2022 #16
DOJ's motion did not include the affidavit. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2022 #17
Is that still true after this year's Vega decision? gratuitous Aug 2022 #18
Yes it is still the state of the law. Dread Pirate Roberts Aug 2022 #19

OneGrassRoot

(22,995 posts)
1. Are we certain the affidavit(s) will be released?
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 10:08 AM
Aug 2022

There seems to be some question about that and, if it is released, will the redactions generate more conspiracies than answers. Regardless, I hope that whatever is released today is clarifying in a meaningful (for us) way.

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
3. Not certain, but I would think the entire filing is fair game
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 10:42 AM
Aug 2022

Unless there were some sensitive supporting facts (which is certainly a possibility) the affidavit should be included in any release. Although you are correct about potential redactions. Would probably make for a weekend full of speculation and a Sunday talk show line-up of Nostradamus like predictions from talking heads.

wnylib

(22,237 posts)
5. Release of the affidavit could make the informant
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:00 AM
Aug 2022

vulnerable to murder. It would tell Trump and his allies (foreign and domestic) what kinds of information networks the FBI has.

OneGrassRoot

(22,995 posts)
7. Interesting...
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:03 AM
Aug 2022

Sorry for my ignorance, but is Trump, as the target, privy to the affidavit, or just the warrant and inventory list? If he and his team can ferret out who the informant is from this info as you suggest, they're already in danger.

wnylib

(22,237 posts)
11. I am not a legal expert, but
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:26 AM
Aug 2022

some of our own DU legal posters have said that an affidavit is not released until arraignment in court. At that time, it can be a redacted version that is released. In this case, they said that this affidavit is likely to be highly redacted before its release to Trump and his attorney(s).

Trump has not been arraigned in a court so the redacted affidavit is not yet released.

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
9. They sure could "reverse engineer" the identity of any C.I.
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:11 AM
Aug 2022

Remember, they (Trump and his people) know a lot more than we do and likely more than the DOJ and FBI. What they don't know is how much of what they know the DOJ and FBI are on to. Who the "rat" is is one of the few things they don't have over the investigators.

Bev54

(10,184 posts)
6. No the application and affidavit will not be released today. It will be released maybe
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:01 AM
Aug 2022

in a future court filing but likely will be sealed or redacted even in trial. It will only be the warrant and the inventory list that will be released with the warrant.

Laxman

(2,419 posts)
2. I Agree....
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 10:14 AM
Aug 2022

having been on both sides of this argument at various times in my career. I do hope they release the affidavits along with the warrant. The only thing that may prevent that is if there is sensitive information for a continuing investigation contained in them. Even so, they had to have given the package of the signed warrant and the supporting documentation to Trump's attorneys when the warrant was executed. Whatever was secret to this point, no longer is.

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
8. I'd say yes
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:07 AM
Aug 2022

Pre-indictment investigatory materials are generally not considered public information. You want to protect people from prejudicial release of information (even Trump) that does not lead to criminal charges. The public interest (and I mean that in the "public welfare" context not the voyeuristic) would make this a compelling case for release.

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
10. Let me put this here for informational purposes
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:18 AM
Aug 2022

Just so anyone not familiar with the process can see just how Federal search warrants are issued and executed. It isn't done lightly or without substantial underlying reasons. You can always do some more research on Rule 41 (https://www.federalrulesofcriminalprocedure.org/title-viii/rule-41-search-and-seizure/ ) to get a better understanding for schooling your MAGA acquaintences.

Rule 41. Search and Seizure

(a) Scope and Definitions.

(1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances.

(2) Definitions. The following definitions apply under this rule:

(A) “Property” includes documents, books, papers, any other tangible objects, and information.

(B) “Daytime” means the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. according to local time.

(C) “Federal law enforcement officer” means a government agent (other than an attorney for the government) who is engaged in enforcing the criminal laws and is within any category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request a search warrant.

(D) “Domestic terrorism” and “international terrorism” have the meanings set out in 18 U.S.C. § 2331.

(E) “Tracking device” has the meaning set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3117(b).

(b) Venue for a Warrant Application. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:

(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district — or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district — has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;

(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed;

(3) a magistrate judge–in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism–with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district;

(4) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a tracking device; the warrant may authorize use of the device to track the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or both; and

(5) a magistrate judge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the following:

(A) a United States territory, possession, or commonwealth;

(B) the premises–no matter who owns them–of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission’s purposes; or

(C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.

(6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:

(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or

(B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.

(c) Persons or Property Subject to Search or Seizure. A warrant may be issued for any of the following:

(1) evidence of a crime;

(2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;

(3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime; or

(4) a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.

(d) Obtaining a Warrant.

(1) In General. After receiving an affidavit or other information, a magistrate judge–or if authorized by Rule 41(b), a judge of a state court of record–must issue the warrant if there is probable cause to search for and seize a person or property or to install and use a tracking device.

(2) Requesting a Warrant in the Presence of a Judge.

(A) Warrant on an Affidavit. When a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government presents an affidavit in support of a warrant, the judge may require the affiant to appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witness the affiant produces.

(B) Warrant on Sworn Testimony. The judge may wholly or partially dispense with a written affidavit and base a warrant on sworn testimony if doing so is reasonable under the circumstances.

(C) Recording Testimony. Testimony taken in support of a warrant must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device, and the judge must file the transcript or recording with the clerk, along with any affidavit.

(3) Requesting a Warrant by Telephonic or Other Reliable Electronic Means. In accordance with Rule 4.1, a magistrate judge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.

(e) Issuing the Warrant.

(1) In General. The magistrate judge or a judge of a state court of record must issue the warrant to an officer authorized to execute it.

(2) Contents of the Warrant.

(A) Warrant to Search for and Seize a Person or Property. Except for a tracking-device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned. The warrant must command the officer to:

(i) execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than 14 days;

(ii) execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes execution at another time; and

(iii) return the warrant to the magistrate judge designated in the warrant.

(B) Warrant Seeking Electronically Stored Information. A warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Unless otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant. The time for executing the warrant in Rule 41(e)(2)(A) and (f)(1)(A) refers to the seizure or on-site copying of the media or information, and not to any later off-site copying or review.

(C) Warrant for a Tracking Device. A tracking-device warrant must identify the person or property to be tracked, designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned, and specify a reasonable length of time that the device may be used. The time must not exceed 45 days from the date the warrant was issued. The court may, for good cause, grant one or more extensions for a reasonable period not to exceed 45 days each. The warrant must command the officer to:

(i) complete any installation authorized by the warrant within a specified time no longer than 10 days;

(ii) perform any installation authorized by the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes installation at another time; and

(iii) return the warrant to the judge designated in the warrant.

(f) Executing and Returning the Warrant.

(1) Warrant to Search for and Seize a Person or Property.

(A) Noting the Time. The officer executing the warrant must enter on it the exact date and time it was executed.

(B) Inventory. An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seized. The officer must do so in the presence of another officer and the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken. If either one is not present, the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in the presence of at least one other credible person. In a case involving the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information, the inventory may be limited to describing the physical storage media that were seized or copied. The officer may retain a copy of the electronically stored information that was seized or copied.

(C) Receipt. The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property. For a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and seize or copy electronically stored information, the officer must make reasonable efforts to serve a copy of the warrant and receipt on the person whose property was searched or who possessed the information that was seized or copied. Service may be accomplished by any means, including electronic means, reasonably calculated to reach that person.

(D) Return. The officer executing the warrant must promptly return it–together with a copy of the inventory–to the magistrate judge designated on the warrant. The officer may do so by reliable electronic means. The judge must, on request, give a copy of the inventory to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken and to the applicant for the warrant.

(2) Warrant for a Tracking Device.

(A) Noting the Time. The officer executing a tracking-device warrant must enter on it the exact date and time the device was installed and the period during which it was used.

(B) Return. Within 10 days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing the warrant must return it to the judge designated in the warrant. The officer may do so by reliable electronic means.

(C) Service. Within 10 days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing a tracking-device warrant must serve a copy of the warrant on the person who was tracked or whose property was tracked. Service may be accomplished by delivering a copy to the person who, or whose property, was tracked; or by leaving a copy at the person’s residence or usual place of abode with an individual of suitable age and discretion who resides at that location and by mailing a copy to the person’s last known address. Upon request of the government, the judge may delay notice as provided in Rule 41(f)(3).

(3) Delayed Notice. Upon the government’s request, a magistrate judge–or if authorized by Rule 41(b), a judge of a state court of record–may delay any notice required by this rule if the delay is authorized by statute.

(g) Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.

(h) Motion to Suppress. A defendant may move to suppress evidence in the court where the trial will occur, as Rule 12 provides.

(i) Forwarding Papers to the Clerk. The magistrate judge to whom the warrant is returned must attach to the warrant a copy of the return, of the inventory, and of all other related papers and must deliver them to the clerk in the district where the property was seized.

lark

(23,360 posts)
13. I truly don't expect to see this information.
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 11:30 AM
Aug 2022

Traitior tot's lawyer will 100% file to block it - remember everything orange fuck says is a lie. The only way they won't file is if they have been assured that the judge is a rw federalist traitor too won't release the information.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
18. Is that still true after this year's Vega decision?
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 01:58 PM
Aug 2022

Or is police misconduct excused only for low-rent suspects?

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,899 posts)
19. Yes it is still the state of the law.
Fri Aug 12, 2022, 04:05 PM
Aug 2022

Vega was a 5th amendment case concerning incriminating statements. Search & siezure is a 4th amendment issue and has also been memorialized in the Federal Rules of Criminal Practice (see Rule 41 above)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Fruit of the Poisonou...