Mediaboss Marketing

The execution of the search warrant at former President Donald Trumps home in Florida caused consternation for some who think the warrant was politically driven. Serving a search warrant on Trump has political implications, but that does not mean it was done without a proper constitutional basis.

As an initial matter, the individuals seeking the search warrant made a determination that Trumps home contained evidence of a crime or items that were illegally possessed. In other words, officials with the FBI, in conjunction with attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded that such evidence probably was inside the home. Given that this search warrant was unprecedented, it is hard to imagine those officials and attorneys made the decision lightly.

Even if one believes those officials and attorneys engaged in rampant political misconduct, an external check exists. For federal law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant, they had to get authorization from a neutral U.S. magistrate judge. The FBI agent had to present an affidavit, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury to all the details in the affidavit that supported the assertion there probably is evidence of crime. There cannot be any vague assertion that some crime happened. Instead, the affidavit must have information that describes the expected evidence in support of the allegations related to the specific crime.

In order for the magistrate judge to sign the search warrant, that person had to find that probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Federal magistrate judges are not political nominees; they are highly trained legal experts who are selected to work for a federal court based on merit.

As a former U.S. magistrate judge, I signed countless search warrants, but never one as high profile as this one. Each time I reviewed an application for a search warrant, I read and analyzed all the documents carefully, ensuring there was full compliance with the Fourth Amendment before I signed the warrant. I can only imagine if I were reviewing a warrant application for a former president that my high level of diligence would have somehow been even higher. I would expect whoever signed this search warrant exercised a similar exacting level of legal analysis.

If somehow the oversight and review by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the magistrate judges analysis all failed, Trump still had options. He could have gone to federal court seeking to quash the search warrant with arguments that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Another federal judge would have reviewed the search warrant to ensure it complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. Trump, with his legal resources, did not choose to have a federal judge immediately review the warrants constitutionality, which likely indicates nothing readily appeared to be unconstitutional.

As search warrants are a law enforcement tool in criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment authorizes their issuance provided they meet a number of parameters, including particularity and reasonableness. The execution of the warrant may not lead to any charges against any individual, including Trump, as there is no certainty that the FBI agents will find evidence of a crime. Probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances is the standard, as opposed to certainty.

However, if Trump is charged with a crime based on any evidence obtained from the search of his home, he will have another chance to challenge the search warrant. He can file a motion to suppress with the federal judge overseeing the charges against him that could challenge the allegations and information in the agents sworn affidavit, any shortcomings in the magistrate judges review of the warrant application, or any problems with the execution of the warrant at his home. Finally, Trump can appeal any unsuccessful motion to suppress to the federal appellate court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of Trumps supporters decried the execution of the search warrant. None of these supporters, however, pointed to any concrete Fourth Amendment violations in the warrant. Trump chose to forgo filing a motion to quash. A number of constitutional safeguards exists. Ultimately, the search warrant, while shocking given its target, appears to comply with the Fourth Amendment based on what we currently know.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law, where he teaches, among other topics, federal criminal procedure, which concerns the Fourth Amendment. He served as federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas from 2005 until 2013.

See more here:
Commentary: 'I signed countless warrants. Search of Trump's house is shocking and constitutional.' - San Antonio Express-News