WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department violated the constitutional rights of a close friend of James Comey and must return computer files that prosecutors hoped to use in a possible criminal case against the former FBI director, a federal judge said Friday.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Koller-Cotelli’s decision not only sharply criticized the conduct of Justice Department prosecutors but also marked a dramatic setback to government efforts to seek new charges against Comey after it was initially dismissed last month.
The order relates to computer files and communications that investigators obtained years ago from Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey and Columbia University law professor, as part of a media leak investigation that concluded without a charge. The Justice Department continued to hold onto those files and conduct searches of them this fall, without a new warrant, as they prepared a case accusing Comey of lying to Congress five years ago.
Richman alleged that the Justice Department violated his Fourth Amendment rights by keeping his records and conducting new warrantless searches of the files, prompting Koller-Cotelli to issue the order last week.
The Justice Department said the request for the records was merely an attempt to obstruct a new prosecution of Comey, but the judge again ruled in favor of Richman in a 46-page order Friday ordering the Justice Department to return his files.
“When the government violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure of a broad swath of an individual’s electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has concluded, and then selecting those files without a warrant to obtain government evidence against someone, does that constitute illegal evidence against someone? Intrusion?” The judge wrote.
One answer, she said, is to require the government to return property to its rightful owner.
The judge, however, allowed the Justice Department to file an electronic copy of Richman’s records under seal in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the Comey investigation is based, and suggested that prosecutors could later try to access it with a valid search warrant.
The Justice Department alleges that Comey used Richman to share information with the news media during the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Prosecutors accused the former FBI director of lying to Congress in September by denying that he authorized an aide to serve as an anonymous source for the media.
That indictment was dismissed last month after a federal judge in Virginia ruled that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who brought the case, was illegally appointed by the Trump administration. But the decision leaves open the possibility that the government could try to re-indict Comey, a longtime foe of President Donald Trump. Comey has pleaded not guilty, denied perjury and accused the Justice Department of retaliatory prosecution.
The Comey saga has a long history.
In June 2017, a month after Comey was fired as FBI director, he testified that he gave Richman a copy of a memo he had written documenting his conversations with Trump and authorized him to share the memo’s contents with a reporter.
After that testimony, Richman allowed the FBI to make an image, or complete electronic copy, of all the files on his computer and the hard drive attached to that computer. He authorized the FBI to search for limited purposes, the judge noted.
Then, in 2019 and 2020, the FBI and the Justice Department obtained search warrants to obtain Richman’s email accounts and computer files as part of a media leak investigation that ended in 2021 without charges. Those warrants were limited in scope, but Richman is accused of collecting more information than warrants allowed by the government, including personal intermediary information and sensitive correspondence.
Additionally, Richman said the Justice Department violated his authority by searching his files in September, without a new warrant, as part of an entirely separate investigation.
“The court further concludes that petitioner Richman’s files constitute an ongoing improper seizure by the government,” Koller-Cotelli wrote. “Therefore, the Court agrees with petitioner Richman that the Government violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
