Sealed search warrant

A sealed search warrant is a search warrant whose contents and accompanying affidavit are not released to the general public, including the subject of the warrant. Sealed search warrants are often issued by U.S. Magistrate Judges pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.[1] Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Warner Communications that no First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution right of access to judicial records exists, a common law right of access exists.

Arguments for sealing

Arguments for sealing

Reasons for sealing a search warrant can include that nondisclosure is necessitated by a compelling government interest; for example, that disclosure would imperil an investigation. An example would be if the search warrant affidavit revealed that information was being gathered through a wiretap that has not been terminated, or a confidential informant whose life might be put at risk if his identity were revealed.[2] Sometimes the searched individual may also oppose disclosure of a warrant, his right to a fair trial. The searched individual or cooperating witnesses may also oppose disclosure due to privacy concerns.

Arguments against sealing

Under normal circumstances, the public has a right of access to search warrant affidavits. Also, the party subject to the warrant has an interest in knowing the basis of the warrant so that he can assess its legitimacy and challenge the propriety of the seizure of his property.[2] After criminal charges have been filed, the defendant's interest in seeking the suppression of evidence may be substantial.[3]

Reforms

In Utah, it has been proposed that warrant sealing periods be limited to six months intervals and that the burden for continuing the seal be placed on those individuals with standing in the court.[4]

gollark: I said nothing about them being serious arguments or not.
gollark: This is also bizarre. Your perceptions of importance don't necessarily match other people's, and what they post in the channel is governed by their own perception.
gollark: > You could argue that it's an action of a protest, but a) protest is taken after negotiations fail, and there were no negotiations, b) there's a thing called self-preservation.I have no idea what this is actually supposed to mean, so I can't respond to it much.
gollark: If you do a thing, and it turns out to not fix a problem, it does not follow that you should just immediately increase the thing further.
gollark: Metadiscussion being tightly restricted and controlled sounds more like a way to consolidate palaiologistic power than something to actually generally benefit the community.

References
  1. "Gagged, Sealed & Delivered: Reforming ECPA's Secret Docket". Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 6 (313). 2012.
  2. "Litigating Sealed Search Warrants: Recent Cases Limit Indefinite Seal In Pre-Indictment Investigations". www.nacdl.org.
  3. Michael D. Johnson and Anne E. Gardner (2003). "Access to Search Warrant Materials: Balancing Competing Interests Pre-Indictment". U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 25 (771).
  4. "Increased Transparency for Search Warrants Considered by Utah Court System". libertasutah.org.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.