Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants Daniel Richman’s motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of electronic files retained by the Government. The Court holds that the Government’s continued retention of a full image of Richman’s computer and related account materials, followed by a warrantless search years after the investigation ended, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court orders return of the covered materials, permits a sealed copy to be deposited with the Eastern District of Virginia for potential future lawful use, and denies as moot the pending temporary restraining order-related requests.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
December 12, 2025
Docket number
Civil Misc. Action No. 25-0170 (CKK)
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the Government's warrantless 2025 search of electronic files retained from an earlier investigation violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the Government's continued retention of Richman's electronic files became an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure because the Government failed to safeguard them against warrantless access.
- Whether Richman established the prerequisites for equitable relief and return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).
- Whether Rule 41(g) authorized an order barring the Government from using or relying on information derived from the files in a prosecution or investigation of another person.
- What conditions the Court could impose to preserve lawful future access to the electronic files.
Holdings
- The Government's warrantless review in September 2025 of the contents of Richman's retained cell-phone and tablet data was an unreasonable and unconstitutional Fourth Amendment search.
- Although retention of Richman's files was initially reasonable, the Government's continued retention became an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure after its unlawful warrantless search demonstrated that it had not maintained effective safeguards against unauthorized access.
- Richman was entitled to equitable relief ordering the Government to return the covered electronic materials because the Government violated his Fourth Amendment rights and the relevant equitable factors supported relief.
- Richman was not entitled to a prospective order barring the Government from using or relying on information derived from the files in an investigation or criminal prosecution of another person, provided future access is obtained through a valid warrant and judicial order.
- The Court could condition return of the files by allowing the Government to create one complete electronic copy and deposit it under seal with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where future access would require a lawful search warrant and judicial order.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…