Disclaimer: This article may contain the viewpoint and opinion of the author.
The biggest news story of the last several weeks occurred Monday, August 8th. President Trump’s Mar a Lago home was raided by the FBI. The raid, authorized by the Department of Justice, was looking for classified documents Trump had in his possession.
In the early morning hours, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents executed a search warrant at the former President’s Mar a Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. It was an unprecedented action by the United States Justice Department.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of the Southern Florida District signed the search warrant. A search warrant is an official legal document that gives law enforcement officers the right to search a pre-determined location. The location and what is being looked for are clearly defined in the document.
A search warrant is not an easy document to get signed by a magistrate. An office submits an affidavit to the judge and has to provide enough evidence to show sufficient probable cause that illegal activities are happening at a specific place.
Once the judge reviews the details, he or she must agree that there is enough probable cause. The judge then issues the search warrant to the officer. The majority of Judges across the United States used to be very apprehensive about issuing search warrants.
President Trump is fighting back. “A major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment will soon be filed concerning the illegal Break-In of my home, Mar-a-Lago, right before the ever important Mid-Term Elections,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
The former President is arguing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the FBI searched his residence. “My rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country,” he posted.
If a judge determines the Trump’s rights were violated, any evidence seized during the raid would be inadmissible in any legal proceedings. However, an illegal search is not a grant of immunity from prosecution.
Police might have enough evidence to support a conviction. Or they may find some exception to the exclusionary rule that would allow them to present the evidence uncovered during an illegal search.
The actual warrant was signed by Reinhart on Aug. 5, 2022, at 12:12 p.m. Three days before the Justice Department and FBI conducted the raid to execute it. The FBI claimed whatever documents they were searching for were of vital interest to national security. However, they waited three days.
The fact the FBI had their warrant for three days eliminates the question of exigent circumstances. Those are details that explain the evidence law enforcement is looking for is in immediate danger of being destroyed. It can be burned, flushed, shredded, liquified, or even ingested.
The threat of its destruction stresses the immediate need for the warrant to be signed and executed. If the FBI had the search warrant for three days, they were not concerned with evidence potentially being destroyed.
Even stranger is that Reinhart gave the FBI until the 19th of August to execute the search warrant. He didn’t think there was an immediate need to secure whatever documents they described in the affidavit.
The search of locations during the raid was also controversial. Officers are allowed to search anyplace their evidence may be, anything in plain sight that is illegal, and search places where someone could be hiding to protect themselves.
In the case of searching for documents, that can mean just about anywhere a piece of paper can be hidden. It’s a wide swath of locations. The search warrant is purposely vague. A judge would have turned an affidavit away for such a request.
As a result of the raid, More Americans than ever believe Biden is using the FBI as his “personal Gestapo.” A Rasmussen poll revealed that 53 percent of Americans agree there exists “a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI who are using the FBI … as Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo.”
