U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the Justice Department to return files seized in 2017 from law professor Daniel Richman, concluding prosecutors violated his Fourth Amendment rights and improperly used the material when pursuing an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The judge called the handling of a forensic image of Richman’s hard drive and his iCloud and university emails “callous” and a breach of protocol. A sealed copy of the files will remain with the Eastern District of Virginia court in case prosecutors later obtain permission to use them. The decision follows a separate ruling that found Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed when she presented the Comey case to a grand jury.
Judge Orders DOJ To Return Data Seized From James Comey Ally, Citing Fourth Amendment Violations
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that data used to indict Comey, pictured, must be returned to law professor Daniel Richman. (Carsten Koall / Getty Images file)
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Justice Department to return electronic files it seized in 2017 from Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman, finding that prosecutors violated his Fourth Amendment rights and improperly relied on those materials in pursuing an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sharply criticized Justice Department prosecutors, saying an image of Richman’s hard drive and emails obtained from his iCloud and Columbia University accounts were handled with “callous disregard” for his legal protections. Her ruling comes in a 46-page memorandum that details the government’s conduct and the appropriate remedy.
Judge’s Ruling and Remedy
Kollar-Kotelly ordered that the seized data be returned to Richman, while allowing one limited concession to the government: a sealed copy of the files will remain under the custody of the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) in case prosecutors later obtain permission from judges there to use the material again.
“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? Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides one such remedy: a court may order the Government to return the files to their rightful owner. This case calls for that remedy.”
Background
The Justice Department obtained copies of Richman’s computer files and emails in 2017 while investigating Comey after his firing as FBI director. Comey had testified to Congress that he gave Richman memos about meetings with then-President Donald Trump and asked Richman to share them with a reporter. Following that testimony, Richman consented to a forensic image of his personal computer and an additional hard drive.
Prosecutors retained those copies and, according to the judge, later relied on them in efforts this year to secure a new indictment against Comey without obtaining a fresh warrant. Kollar-Kotelly described that use of previously seized material without new judicial authorization as a “remarkable breach of protocol.”
Connection To Halligan Appointment Ruling
The decision follows another judicial setback for the Justice Department: last month, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan — who presented the Comey case to a grand jury — was not lawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney for EDVA. That finding led to the dismissal of the earlier Comey indictment and has complicated prosecutors’ efforts to refile charges.
Prosecutors recently asked a court for permission to use the 2017 material in support of a new indictment after the initial indictment was dismissed. In filings this week, prosecutors contended that Richman sought to protect Comey from reindictment and acknowledged the centrality of the seized material to their renewed efforts.
Wider Context
The ruling is another in a series of recent setbacks for Justice Department efforts to pursue cases against figures tied to political controversies. Media reports note parallel failures in attempts to obtain new indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James in separate federal proceedings earlier this month.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the D.C. ruling or say whether it will seek to refile charges against Comey. Attorney General Pam Bondi had said the department planned to appeal the Comey appointment decision, though no appeal had been filed as of the court's order.
What Happens Next
The court’s order returns the materials to Richman while preserving a sealed copy in EDVA. That preserves the possibility — but not the certainty — that prosecutors could obtain judicial approval to use the material in future proceedings. For now, Kollar-Kotelly's ruling emphasizes limits on government searches and the need for fresh judicial authorization when previously seized files are repurposed in new investigations.
