There is 1 comment.

1. Lincoln
   Randy Hendershot

   @RicosSuitMechanic

   12:29 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 15, 2022

   1. Having been retired from my Asst. U.S. Attorney job since 2015, I won’t comment upon present DOJ policy, since it should be available online in the United States Attorneys Manual.  I will say that the policy circa 2015 was that search warrants were frowned upon when lesser means such as subpoenas were available, especially in white collar matters, and especially if a grand jury had already been empaneled.  Enforcement of a subpoena was a matter to be taken before the issuing judge for resolution.
   2. If the FBI Agents were in a place that they were lawfully permitted to be (example, the records room at Mar-A-Lago with warrant in hand) and they were to observe material that was (a.) “immediately apparent” to them to be evidence of (b.) either the crime under investigation, or an additional crime, the material is subject to seizure even if the materials were not listed or described in the warrant.  
   3. Best practice, although not required, is to suspend the original search and seek a new search warrant that lists the newly discovered evidence and the new search parameters.
   4.  Example, officers are executing a search warrant for stolen goods, and find a body stuffed into a freezer.  Whoops!
   5.  Example, officers are executing a search warrant for kiddie porn and have a warrant describing a laptop computer.  Officers find a server farm in the basement.
   6. Warrants are always subject to complaints that they were overbroad, don’t match the allegations in the affidavit, or they were executed in an abusive manner.  (Example, “knock” versus “no-knock warrants, or the trashing of business offices.) Depending on the seriousness of the “abuse” if any, the judge may determine that no evidence, some evidence, or all evidence that resulted should be suppressed.  Warrants are always subject to complaints regarding the manner of their execution.