IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE: MOTION TO SEAL SEARCH : Case No. 3:18MJ302

WARRANT DOCUMENTS 3:18MJ303

 3:18MJ304

 UNDER SEAL

______________________________________

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS

The United States, by and through its attorneys, Kenneth L. Parker, United States Attorney, 

and Amy M. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves the Court to seal the 

application for search warrant, the affidavit in support of that application, search warrant and 

search warrant return, in the above-captioned case until otherwise ordered by the Court, or until 

July 31, 2022, whichever occurs earlier. The United States also requests that this motion be sealed 

as it necessarily discusses aspects of the investigation.

I. Governing Case Law

The proceeding for issuing a search warrant and related documents “is necessarily ex parte, 

since the subject of the search cannot be tipped off to the application for a warrant lest he destroy 

or remove the evidence.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 169 (1978); see also In re Search of 

Fair Finance, 692 F.3d 424, 430 (6th Cir. 2012). It is generally recognized that the public has a 

common law right, but no First Amendment right, of access to judicial documents, including 

documents associated with ex parte proceedings such as search warrant affidavits. Fair Finance, 

692 F.3d at 431-32. Yet, because “[t]here are a variety of ways in which the criminal investigatory 

process may be harmed by making documents filed in search warrant proceedings publicly 

available,” id. at 432, a court has the inherent power to seal affidavits in support of warrants to 

protect an ongoing investigation. Times Mirror Company v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1213 

Case: 3:18-mj-00304-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/14/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 35
n.3 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Fair Finance, 692 F.3d at 433 (recognizing district court’s power as 

“supervisor of its own records and files” to weigh public’s right to know against government’s 

interest in privacy).

II. Reasons for Sealing

The application for search warrant, the accompanying affidavit, search warrant and search 

warrant return in this case are related to an ongoing investigation. The affidavit sets forth 

significant information concerning the investigation and premature public disclosure of the warrant 

application and accompanying affidavit may compromise the government’s investigation by 

revealing details of the investigation to other individuals involved in the activity. This may lead 

to the destruction of evidence and tampering and/or collusion of witnesses. The United States has 

considered alternatives less drastic than sealing, until July 31, 2022, and finds none that would 

suffice to protect thisinvestigation.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the application, affidavit 

supporting the warrant, search warrant and search warrant return remain sealed until otherwise 

ordered by the Court, or until July 31, 2022, whichever occurs earlier. The United States also 

requests that this motion be sealed.

Respectfully submitted,

KENNETH L. PARKER

United States Attorney

s/Amy M. Smith

AMY M. SMITH (0081712)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, Ohio 45402

Office: (937) 225-2910

Fax: (937) 225-2564

E-mail: Amy.Smith2@usdoj.gov

Case: 3:18-mj-00304-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/14/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 36