FORT PIERCE, Fla.—U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon held a hearing on June 25, the fourth in five days, on former President Donald Trump’s motion for relief in his classified documents case.
The former president is arguing that the FBI search on Mar-a-Lago was conducted unlawfully and that in the process leading up to the search his attorney-client privilege had also been violated. The arguments regarding attorney-client privilege were heard privately by the judge, as the parties touched on sensitive information, while arguments about the raid were open to the public.
FBI Searched Barron, Melania’s Rooms: Defense
Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that FBI agents did not receive proper guidance prior to the search, as the warrant allowed law enforcement to search all of Mar-a-Lago. He argued that agents were searching the kitchen, as well as the former first lady’s rooms, and also the former president’s son Barron’s room, even though there was no probable cause that classified documents would be in those locations.Mr. Bove argued the lack of guidance resulted in personal items of no consequence to the case being picked up during the search, including medical records and former President Trump’s passport. The warrant allowed FBI agents to rummage freely and search every piece of paper they encountered, Mr. Bove argued. Boxes that contained classified documents were ultimately only seized from a storage room and former President Trump’s office.
While Judge Cannon seemed skeptical that a search warrant required detailed guidance, she asked prosecutors why they needed to search a minor’s room.
Prosecutor David Harbach argued that the magistrate who issued the search warrant had concluded the classified documents could have been anywhere in Mar-a-Lago, and therefore authorized a search of the whole property. Judge Cannon then asked, again, whether there was evidence that classified documents would be in Barron Trump’s room, and Mr. Harbach said they did not have this evidence.
Mr. Bove argued the government had the burden of showing good faith in the search process, and Mr. Harbach argued the defense held the burden of showing whether there were false statements or violations made in the search process.
Mr. Harbach argued that the agents conducted themselves professionally and did not “rummage” everywhere.
Mr. Bove asked the judge for an evidentiary hearing, during which the defense would be able to compel testimony from the FBI agents, arguing he couldn’t take Mr. Harbach’s word for it. Mr. Harbach did not participate in the search.
The judge did not indicate whether she would allow an evidentiary hearing, nor when she would rule on the motion.
At the end of the hearing, Mr. Harbach said he was concerned about the defense’s requests for multiple hearings on issues he did not believe were related to the case, calling it “unfair” and an effort to delay the process.
