In a ruling that places constitutional principle above prosecutorial ambition, a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to return computer files seized from a Columbia law professor and longtime confidant of former FBI Director James Comey — files searched without a warrant years after the original investigation had closed. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's 46-page opinion is a reminder that the Fourth Amendment does not expire when a case grows inconvenient, and that the government's reach, however politically motivated, is not boundless. The decision lands as a significant obstacle in
Judge Orders DOJ to Return Files in Setback to Comey Prosecution
The government violated his rights by retaining files long after the investigation ended
Mark
Why does it matter that the judge found the searches were warrantless? Couldn't the government just get a warrant now and search again?
Mimi
Because the Fourth Amendment protects you from the initial intrusion itself. Once the government violates your rights by searching without a warrant, you can't just cure that violation by getting a warrant afterward. The remedy is to return what was taken.
Mark
But the judge said they could file a copy under seal and try again with a warrant. Doesn't that let them back in through the side door?
Mimi
Technically yes, but it's much harder now. They'd have to convince a judge that a new warrant is justified based on information they can describe without relying on what they found in the illegal search. That's a real constraint.
Mark
So this kills the case against Comey?
Mimi
Not necessarily. But it removes the evidence prosecutors were counting on. They'd have to build their case from scratch, using only information obtained lawfully. That's a very different prosecution.
Mark
Why did the government hold onto Richman's files for so long after the leak investigation ended?
Mimi
That's the core of what the judge found troubling. There was no ongoing reason to keep them. They just sat there for years, and then when prosecutors decided to go after Comey, they searched them without asking permission or getting a warrant. The judge saw that as the government treating Richman's property as its own.
Mark
Does this say anything about how the Trump administration is using the Justice Department?
Mimi
The judge didn't frame it that way, but the facts speak for themselves. A prosecutor was already found to have been unlawfully appointed. Now a judge is saying the government violated constitutional rights in pursuing the same target. It suggests a pattern of cutting corners.
The Pulse
- The Justice Department searched Daniel Richman's electronic files without a warrant last fall — years after the original leak investigation had ended — exposing a constitutional breach at the heart of its case against Comey.
- Judge Kollar-Kotelly's 46-page ruling rejected the government's claim that Richman's demand for his property back was mere obstruction, calling out the sweeping and unlawful retention of his personal files, including medical records and sensitive correspondence.
- The original Comey indictment was already dismissed last month after a Virginia judge found the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed — leaving the case on shaky ground before this new ruling arrived.
- Prosecutors have been handed a narrow lifeline: they may file a sealed copy of the records in Virginia and seek a lawful warrant later, but they must return Richman's property now and cannot use what they gathered through the warrantless searches.
- Comey, who has pleaded not guilty and accused the DOJ of vindictive prosecution, now stands behind a constitutional wall that the government itself helped build through its own overreach.
In a ruling that places constitutional principle above prosecutorial ambition, a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to return computer files seized from a Columbia law professor and longtime confidant of former FBI Director James Comey — files searched without a warrant years after the original investigation had closed. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's 46-page opinion is a reminder that the Fourth Amendment does not expire when a case grows inconvenient, and that the government's reach, however politically motivated, is not boundless. The decision lands as a significant obstacle in an already troubled prosecution, one already undone once by questions of lawful authority.
A federal judge has dealt a serious blow to the Justice Department's pursuit of former FBI Director James Comey, ordering prosecutors to return computer files seized from his close friend and Columbia law professor Daniel Richman — files the government searched without a warrant while preparing a new criminal case.
The story begins in June 2017, weeks after President Trump fired Comey. Comey had given Richman a memo documenting a conversation with Trump and authorized him to share it with a reporter. In the years that followed, the FBI collected Richman's electronic files during a media leak investigation, obtaining warrants at the time — though Richman later alleged the government took far more than permitted, including personal medical records. That investigation closed in 2021 without charges.
Then last September, as prosecutors began building a new case accusing Comey of lying to Congress, they searched Richman's files again — this time with no warrant at all. Richman challenged the searches as unconstitutional. The Justice Department argued his demand for the files back was simply obstruction. Judge Kollar-Kotelly was unmoved.
In her ruling, she asked plainly what remedy exists when the government sweeps up a person's electronic life, holds it long after an investigation ends, and later sifts through it without legal authority to build a case against someone else. Her answer: return the property. The decision is a pointed rebuke of prosecutorial conduct and forecloses the government's use of evidence gathered through the warrantless searches.
Prosecutors were offered a narrow path forward — they may file a sealed copy of the records in Virginia and later seek a lawful warrant — but the immediate effect is a significant complication. The original Comey indictment had already been dismissed last month after a Virginia judge found the prosecutor who brought it was unlawfully appointed by the Trump administration. Comey, who has pleaded not guilty and called the prosecution vindictive, now finds constitutional questions about government overreach standing squarely in the center of his case.
A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to the Justice Department's effort to prosecute former FBI director James Comey, ordering prosecutors to return computer files they had seized from one of Comey's closest friends and searched without a warrant.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a 46-page ruling Friday that found the government violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and longtime Comey confidant. The files in question—electronic records from Richman's computers and hard drives—had been in government possession for years, initially collected during a media leak investigation that ended without charges. Prosecutors then conducted new searches of those same files last fall, still without obtaining a fresh warrant, as they prepared a case accusing Comey of lying to Congress about his role in leaking information to the press.
The case traces back to June 2017, just weeks after President Trump fired Comey as FBI director. Comey testified that he had given Richman a memo documenting a conversation with Trump and authorized his friend to share its contents with a reporter. Richman subsequently allowed the FBI to create a complete electronic copy of his computer files. Over the following years, the government obtained warrants to search his email and computer records as part of a media leak investigation, though Richman later alleged they collected far more than the warrants permitted—including personal medical information and sensitive correspondence. The investigation concluded in 2021 without charges against anyone.
But in September, as prosecutors began building a new case against Comey, they searched Richman's files again, this time without any warrant at all. Richman challenged the government's conduct, arguing it violated his constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Justice Department countered that his request to return the files was simply an attempt to obstruct a legitimate prosecution. Kollar-Kotelly rejected that argument entirely.
"When the Government violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by sweeping up a broad swath of a person's electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has ended, and later sifting through those files without a warrant to obtain evidence against someone else, what remedy is available to the victim of the Government's unlawful intrusion?" the judge wrote. The answer, she concluded, was to return the property to its rightful owner.
The ruling represents a stern rebuke of the prosecutors' conduct and creates a major hurdle for any renewed effort to charge Comey. The government's original indictment, filed in September, was dismissed last month after a federal judge in Virginia found that the prosecutor who brought it, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed by the Trump administration. That decision left open the possibility of a retrial, but Kollar-Kotelly's order now complicates that path significantly.
The judge did offer prosecutors a narrow opening. She permitted the Justice Department to file an electronic copy of Richman's records under seal with the Eastern District of Virginia and suggested they could attempt to access the materials later if they obtained a lawful search warrant. But the immediate effect is clear: the government must return Richman's files and cannot use the evidence it obtained through the warrantless searches.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has accused the Justice Department of pursuing him out of vindictiveness. The case has become emblematic of the legal battles surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to investigate and prosecute figures from the previous administration, with constitutional questions about government overreach now standing at the center of the dispute.
Notable Quotes
When the Government violates the Fourth Amendment by sweeping up a broad swath of a person's electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has ended, and later sifting through those files without a warrant to obtain evidence against someone else, what remedy is available?— Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Want the full story?
Read the original at Los Angeles Times ↗
Crime & Justice