A federal district court in Washington D.C. has sided with attorney and law professor Daniel Richman, ruling that the U.S. government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by retaining and subsequently searching his personal electronic files without a warrant years after the initial investigation concluded.
The ruling grants Richman’s motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to compel the return of the files, which were initially collected between 2017 and 2020 in connection with an investigation concerning former FBI Director James B. Comey.
The court found that while the initial seizure and the subsequent retention of the files *might* have been reasonable if properly safeguarded, the Government’s actions in September 2025—conducting a new, warrantless search of the retained data for a new investigation into Mr. Comey—crossed the line into an unreasonable seizure.
The Initial Seizures and the “Arctic Haze” Investigation
The saga began in 2017 when Professor Richman, a friend and former attorney for Mr. Comey, consented to the FBI creating a complete electronic copy (an “image”) of his personal computer, which included backups of his phone and tablet. This consent was related to the initial public disclosures surrounding memos Mr. Comey wrote about meetings with then-President Donald J. Trump.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Government obtained four warrants to search this computer image and Richman’s Columbia University and iCloud accounts as part of the “Arctic Haze” investigation into the alleged disclosure of classified information. Richman argued that even during these warranted searches, the Government over-seized data far beyond the scope of the warrants, capturing vast amounts of personal, professional, and attorney-client privileged information.
While the court acknowledged findings from a separate proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia that suggested the 2019-2020 seizures were overbroad, the D.C. District Court ultimately focused its ruling on the more recent government conduct. The “Arctic Haze” investigation concluded in 2021 without charges.
The Unlawful 2025 Search
The central issue leading to the court’s decision arose in September 2025. In connection with a *new* investigation into Mr. Comey, an FBI agent reviewed a full extraction of Richman’s cell phone and tablet data—data the Government had been holding since 2017-2020—without seeking a new warrant.
The court found this action “manifestly unconstitutional.” Citing established precedent, the opinion stressed that searches of digital data require a warrant, and returning to previously seized data for a new investigation necessitates a new probable cause determination.
“The Government’s warrantless search of the contents of Petitioner Richman’s cell phone and tablet in September 2025 was manifestly unconstitutional,” the Memorandum Opinion stated.
Retention Becomes Unreasonable
The court determined that the Government’s continuous possession of the files amounted to an ongoing “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. While retaining data after an investigation closes can be reasonable if safeguards are in place, the Government’s failure to adhere to the warrant requirement in 2025 proved it could not be trusted to protect the files from future unlawful access.
“The Government’s faithful adherence to the warrant requirement is the essential element that protects an investigation subject from ‘general unrestricted rummaging through the immense trove of information stored on the electronic device,'” the opinion noted, concluding that the Government’s failure to safeguard the files made their continued retention an unreasonable seizure.
The Remedy: Return with Conditions
Because Richman successfully demonstrated a Fourth Amendment violation, the court moved to fashion an equitable remedy. It found that Richman had standing, suffered irreparable harm (loss of constitutional rights and privacy), and lacked an adequate remedy at law (damages alone would not restore lost privacy or professional confidence).
The Government argued that Richman’s motion was merely a collateral attack on the Comey prosecution, but the court rejected this, emphasizing that its order was designed to remedy Richman’s personal rights violation, not to suppress evidence in another case.
Crucially, the court did not order the Government to destroy all copies, as Richman requested, because the Government indicated the files might be necessary for the ongoing Comey prosecution in Virginia. Instead, the court crafted a balanced order:
1. Return of Originals: The Government must return all copies of the “covered materials” (the 2017 computer image and the 2019-2020 email/iCloud files) to Richman.
2. Sealed Copy for Virginia: Before returning the originals, the Government is permitted to create *one* complete electronic copy of the materials and deposit it, under seal, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
3. Future Access: Access to this sealed copy in Virginia would require a future, lawful search warrant issued by that court.
The Attorney General was ordered to certify compliance with the return order by December 15, 2025. The temporary restraining order previously placed on the data was extended until that certification was filed.