1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-AMC

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

______________________________/

MOTION TO UNSEAL AFFIDAVIT

Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this 

Court for an order requiring the Government to provide him and his counsel with an unredacted 

version of the August 5, 2022, search warrant affidavit. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states

as follows:

BACKGROUND

In late 2021 and early 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel communicated with representatives of the 

National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) regarding the return of certain materials 

located at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. (ECF 1 at 4–5).

1

In January 2022, Plaintiff 

voluntarily provided 15 boxes of materials to NARA. Subsequently, a grand jury subpoena was 

issued for additional documents in the custody or control of the Office of President Donald J. 

Trump. In response, Plaintiff provided additional documents. Despite the open communication 

between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for the Government, on August 5, 2022, the Government 

1 ECF references are to the docket in this matter, Case No. 22-CV-81294-AMC, except where 

otherwise noted.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

took the unprecedented step of seeking a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. (ECF 1 at 6). The search 

warrant was unusually and impermissibly broad. It enabled the Government to search Plaintiff’s 

office, and “all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available 

to be used by [President Trump] and his staff and in which boxes could be stored, including all 

structures or buildings on the estate.” See United States v. Sealed Search Warrant, No. 9:22-mj08332 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter “In re Sealed Search Warrant”), ECF 17 at 3 (emphasis added). The 

search warrant was also incredibly expansive as to the materials that could be seized. It

inappropriately permitted the seizure of not only allegedly responsive documents, but also 

additional documents in the same box as a potentially responsive document, and even “any other 

containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents

and containers/boxes.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Essentially, the search warrant wrongfully 

permitted the seizure of any document found at Mar-a-Lago.

Government agents acted with abandon in seizing Plaintiff’s property.

2 They seized 

attorney-client privileged documents, passports, items of clothing, personal photographs, books, 

and private correspondence between Plaintiff and his friends and family. At the start of the search, 

counsel for President Trump requested a copy of the search warrant and supporting affidavit. The 

Government declined this request. Following their nine-hour search, the Government did provide 

a copy of the search warrant and return, but again refused to provide the affidavit.

On August 11, 2022, the Government moved to unseal the search warrant, a few related 

documents, and a redacted copy of the Receipt for Property. See In re Sealed Search Warrant,

2

In a bizarre move, at the start of the search, the Government asked counsel for Plaintiff to turn 

off the security cameras at Mar-a-Lago, implausibly citing “agent safety” despite the presence of 

numerous U.S. Secret Service agents, and the presence of only a handful of other individuals on 

the property, which had been vacated for the summer. This request was denied. Plaintiff’s counsel 

also asked to observe the search. The Government denied that request.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

ECF 18.

3 The same day, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland held a press conference to 

publicize the Government’s motion in an effort to redirect the public outcry that followed the raid. 

In the press conference, the Attorney General stated – in violation of long-standing DOJ policy –

that the identified documents would be made public, unless Plaintiff filed an objection.

4

On August 22, 2022, a magistrate judge ordered the unsealing of a heavily redacted search 

warrant affidavit. Id., ECF 80, ECF 94. In the public version, released on August 25, 2022, 50 of 

the affidavit’s 84 total paragraphs are blacked out; of the 55 paragraphs following the header 

“Probable Cause,” only four are fully unredacted. Id., ECF 102-1 at 7–29. The redactions even 

extend to section headers. Id. at 9, 18, 23. There is no legitimate basis to withhold the redacted 

information from Plaintiff.

The Government alleged that redactions were needed to protect: (1) witnesses from

intimidation or retaliation; (2) investigative avenues and techniques; (3) grand jury secrecy; (4) the 

safety of law enforcement personnel; and (5) the privacy interests of third parties. Id., ECF 80 at 

9–10. In an attachment explaining its redactions, id., ECF 102-3, the Government refused to 

publicly and specifically explain the basis for redactions. None of the purported justifications apply 

in the context of disclosure of the unredacted search warrant affidavit to Plaintiff under the 

protective order.

On August 30, 2022, the Government filed with the Court what purported to be a “detailed”

property inventory. (ECF 39-1). However, the supposedly “detailed” inventory provided little in 

the way of actual information or detail. Instead, the “detailed” inventory incorrectly labeled nearly 

3 That motion was granted on August 12, 2022. In re Sealed Search Warrant, ECF 41.

4

See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Justice Manual § 1-7.400 (“DOJ generally will not confirm the existence 

of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations.”).

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

every document seized as a “US Government Document.” On September 26, 2022, the 

Government provided a certification of inventory accuracy to the Special Master. (ECF 116-1). It 

also provided the Special Master and Plaintiff with its third version of the inventory in this matter,

which had substantial changes from the previous inventory.

5

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff should be provided with the basic information that would assist this Court in 

deciding a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). To begin this process, 

Plaintiff sought a more detailed property inventory, and an opportunity to review the materials 

seized from his home. At this juncture, it is also important to review the search warrant affidavit. 

Under all applicable law and precedent, the affiant was required to not make any material 

omissions and/or material misstatements in seeking the magistrate’s authorization—including, but 

not limited to, factual or legal errors relating to the history of cooperation by Plaintiff and his 

counsel. In addition, the affiant should have fully disclosed and discussed the total authority of a 

President to declassify materials and determine that materials are personal records under the 

Presidential Records Act, as well as the fact that presidents are accorded great deference when

they have designated materials as either a Presidential record or a personal record. See Judicial 

Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.D.C. 2012) (involving taped 

recordings in the possession of President William J. Clinton). Plaintiff should be provided with an

unredacted copy of the search warrant affidavit so that these matters can be determined by the 

Court. This is especially true given the extraordinary circumstances here, which involve a marked 

departure from the way other presidents have been treated.

5

It listed 53 new documents, clippings, or photographs that had not previously been on the 

inventory list. In addition, a previous entry for “2 empty folders with ‘CLASSIFIED’ Banners” 

disappeared entirely from the third inventory.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

I. Plaintiff Should Obtain An Unredacted Affidavit Pursuant To The Fourth 

Amendment.

The affidavit is a judicial record, and as such there are several grounds for its disclosure.

“The common law, the First Amendment, and, as recognized by some courts, the Fourth 

Amendment may all afford the public a right of access to court proceedings and judicial records.” 

Bennett v. United States, No. 12-61499-CIV, 2013 WL 3821625, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2013).6

As the Government noted in the litigation involving a media request for the search warrant, 

affidavit, and related documents, the general public has a “qualified right of access” to judicial 

records. In re Sealed Search Warrant, ECF 59 at 3 (citing Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 

F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007)). Courts in this and other judicial districts have recognized that 

an individual who has been subjected to a search has an even greater right to judicial records than 

the general public.

Specifically, “the Fourth Amendment may grant a right of access to pre-indictment warrant 

affidavits.” Patel v. United States, No. 9:19-mc-81181, 2019 WL 4251269, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 

9, 2019); see also Bennett, 2013 WL 3821625, at *5 (“Although the Eleventh Circuit has not 

considered whether such a right exists, decisions from federal courts in other circuits recognize 

that, rooted in the Fourth Amendment, targets of a search warrant have a pre-indictment right of 

access to search-warrant materials.”); In re Search of Up North Plastics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 229, 

232 (D. Minn. 1996) (“[A] person whose property has been seized pursuant to a search warrant 

6 Plaintiff asserts his right to access under the common law, as the Supreme Court and the Eleventh 

Circuit have held that there is a “presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial 

records.” See United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Similarly, Plaintiff asserts a First Amendment 

basis for right of access as well, as there is a “qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal 

trial proceedings.” United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015, 1028 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); Chicago Trib. 

Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001)). 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

has a right under the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment to inspect a copy the affidavit upon 

which the warrant was issued.”); In re Search Warrants Issued on April 26, 2004, 353 F. Supp. 2d 

584, 591 (D. Md. 2004) (recognizing a “Fourth Amendment right to inspect the probable cause 

affidavit”); In re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994, 889 F. Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1995) 

(“[T]he Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures includes the 

right to examine the affidavit that supports a warrant after the search has been conducted and a 

return has been filed with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.” (emphasis 

added)). 

Plaintiff cannot vindicate his Constitutional rights unless he is permitted to review the 

search warrant affidavit. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has held, the

“Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause is meaningless” without some way for an 

individual subjected to a search to challenge the lawfulness of that search. In re Search of Up North 

Plastics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. at 232–33. The same is true of Rule 41(g). This procedural rule would 

be meaningless if an aggrieved individual is not allowed to review the affidavit:

If such a motion is made the Rule provides that the court shall receive evidence on 

any issue of fact necessary to decide the motion. In such cases, the court’s decision 

will almost always depend on whether the affidavit submitted in support of the 

warrant application established probable cause[.]

In re Search of Up North Plastics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. at 233.

The exceptional circumstances here—including a virtually limitless search of a President’s 

home, the seizure of huge amounts of personal materials including attorney-client privileged 

documents, and an Attorney General’s publication of the Government’s position in an 

unprecedented press conference—require the disclosure of the affidavit. The idea that the 

Government must keep the details of the affidavit from Plaintiff is further undermined by the 

repeated leaks by DOJ of selected and misleading information. In assessing the risk of irreparable 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, this Court noted that “Government’s counsel . . . candidly 

acknowledged the unfortunate existence of leaks to the press.” (ECF 4 at 10). The Government’s 

conduct alone justifies the release of the affidavit to Plaintiff.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel has reviewed most of the seized materials over the last 

several weeks. The fact the Government took a huge volume of personal and family photographs, 

newspapers, thank-you notes, campaign materials, books, and golf shirts demonstrates that this 

search and seizure was nothing more than a general ransacking.

7 This raises serious questions 

about how the affiant characterized his or her assertion of probable cause and the justification for

seizing thousands of personal and private items. Plaintiff must have an opportunity to review the 

affidavit and determine whether the Fourth Amendment was respected, intentionally subverted, or 

recklessly violated by a DOJ bent on getting its nose under the Mar-a-Lago tent.

II. No Compelling Interest Justifies Withholding The Affidavit From Plaintiff.

The Government has the burden of establishing that a judicial record should be kept sealed. 

See, e.g., Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246; Patel, 2019 WL 4251269, at *4. Here, the Government cannot 

show any compelling interest in keeping portions of the affidavit redacted. Plaintiff recognizes a

general interest in limiting the public disclosure of facts that might interfere with an investigation. 

See, e.g., United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 714 (11th Cir. 1993); Bennett, 2013 WL 3821625, 

at *4; Patel, 2019 WL 4251269, at *4. However, general concerns regarding secrecy are 

7 A general rummaging through the belongings of President Trump is a particularly ominous

moment in law enforcement history. With DOJ and some state officials engaging in various efforts 

to investigate President Trump, the search smacks of pretextual conduct with hopes of feeding 

personal documents to prosecutors or agents who might find use for them in unrelated pursuits.

Authorization to seize “any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together 

with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes” is an invitation to “rummage,” which 

every court has recognized as barred under the Fourth Amendment. See Andresen v. Maryland, 

427 U.S. 463, 480 (1976) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971)).

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

insufficient for the Government to meet its burden given the circumstances here – where the 

Attorney General held a press conference about the investigation and where the Government has 

engaged in a continuous pattern of leaks. This Court should reject any conclusory assertions of a 

need for secrecy given the facts here. Rather, this case requires a “case-by-case balancing of the 

individual’s interest in disclosure against the Government’s need for continued secrecy.” In re 

Sealed Search Warrant, No. 21-MJ-8207, 2021 WL 9527724, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2021)

(discussing the right of access under Bennett and Patel); see also In re Search of 14416 Coral 

Gables Way, North Potomac, Md., 946 F. Supp. 2d 414, 421 (D. Md. 2011) (requiring the 

Government to assert more than a “general concern” regarding an ongoing investigation); In re 

The Baltimore Sun Co., 886 F.2d 60, 66 (4th Cir. 1989) (determining that “conclusory assertions 

are insufficient” and “specificity is required”).

None of the compelling factors that would warrant keeping the affidavit from Plaintiff are 

present here. The entire matter has played out in the media, overwhelmingly because of the 

Government’s leaks. There is no concern regarding disclosure of the scope and direction of the 

investigation; nor is there any prospect of witness intimidation. See Bennett, 2013 WL 3821625, 

at *4. There is no concern that providing Plaintiff with the affidavit would reveal the investigation 

to subjects who are currently unaware of the investigation. Nor is there any credible evidence

whatsoever to suggest that, if the affidavit was made available to Plaintiff, materials or information 

would no longer be available to the Government. In fact, the search warrant came seven months 

after the Plaintiff voluntarily sent 15 boxes of materials to NARA.

Courts have also cited various potential interests related to witnesses whose testimony 

appears directly or indirectly in the search warrant affidavit. But a limited disclosure of the 

affidavit to the Plaintiff would trigger no such concerns. And it would be farcical to cite in this 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

instance any interest in protecting the physical safety of witnesses, as prior courts have sometimes 

done; making the search warrant affidavit available to President Trump himself would not raise 

any such concerns.

The same is true with respect to the Government’s asserted interest in preserving the 

secrecy of certain “investigative techniques,” which the Government characterizes as critical to 

future investigations. Even accepting that the Government can keep judicial records from the 

public merely because they describe an “investigative technique,” that interest cannot be so 

compelling that it outstrips the Constitutional rights of any individual. Here, granting Plaintiff 

access to the search warrant affidavit would have little impact on the Government’s future 

investigations; as the Plaintiff is already aware of DOJ’s investigative techniques, his knowledge 

of additional mechanisms would not be relevant to the numerous future cases not involving him.

The fact that the Government uses informants, reviews videotapes, issues grand jury subpoenas, 

or works closely with NARA officials is hardly a surprise to even the most casual observer of 

DOJ’s investigative techniques in this matter. Again, under all the circumstances of this 

investigation, the Government should not receive undue deference in asserting its many claims to 

justify opaqueness.

III. The Protective Order Serves The Purpose Of Protecting Any Government 

Interest.

Even if the Government could meet its burden of demonstrating a sufficiently compelling 

interest to justify not disclosing the unredacted affidavit to Plaintiff as a general matter, the 

existence of a protective order in this matter already provides a less onerous alternative to sealing.

See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (requiring courts to consider “the availability of a less onerous 

alternative to sealing” in relation to the common-law right of access); Patel, 2019 WL 4251269, 

at *4 (requiring assessment of whether a “compelling government interest . . . cannot be 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

accommodated by some means less restrictive than sealing”); In re Sealed Search Warrant, ECF 

80 at 5 (noting that the rights of access under the common law and the First Amendment both 

require the courts to assess “whether there is a less onerous (or, said differently, a more narrowly 

tailored) alternative to sealing”). In this case, other alternatives would preserve any interest the 

Government demonstrates with respect to its investigation.

The protective order in effect in this matter would greatly restrict access of the affidavit. 

As discussed in Sec. II, supra, to the extent the Court continues to view disclosure of the affidavit 

as raising concerns related to an ongoing investigation, the protective order would substantially 

mitigate those concerns, as the public would not gain access to witness information, securityrelated details, or specifications of any Government investigative techniques.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests, in the interests of justice,

that the Court order the Government to provide Plaintiff with an unredacted version of the August 

5, 2022, search warrant affidavit. 

Dated: November 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lindsey Halligan 

Lindsey Halligan

Florida Bar No. 109481

511 SE 5th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Email: lindseyhalligan@outlook.com

James M. Trusty

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 524-4176

Email: jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

M. Evan Corcoran

SILVERMAN | THOMPSON |

SLUTKIN | WHITE, LLC

400 East Pratt Street, Suite 900

Baltimore, MD 21202

Telephone: (410) 385-2225

Email: ecorcoran@silvermanthompson.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Donald J. Trump

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 22, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF.

/s/ Lindsey Halligan 

Lindsey Halligan

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 12 of 12