Lawyers for Paul Manafort (pictured) argued that materials the FBI seized last May from a self-storage unit owned by Manafort's firm were taken in violation of Manafort’s constitutional rights. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images Judge rejects Manafort bid to suppress storage-unit evidence Manafort's lawyers had argued the FBI violated the Constitution with its search.

A federal judge Thursday rejected former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s bid to suppress key evidence from his upcoming criminal trial.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with special counsel Robert Mueller and against a motion from Manafort lawyers who argued that materials the FBI seized last May from a self-storage owned by Manafort’s firm were taken in violation of Manafort’s constitutional rights.


The FBI initially entered Manafort’s storage unit in Alexandria, Virginia, with consent from one of his employees but without a warrant. An agent the same day then described what he saw in his application to a magistrate judge for a warrant, noting there were “approximately 21 bankers’ boxes that could contain documents, as well as a five-drawer metal filing cabinet” that might be relevant to the investigation.

Manafort was indicted by Mueller’s grand jury last October in Washington, D.C. The longtime GOP operative was charged with money laundering and acting as a foreign agent without registering with the Justice Department. The special counsel has also indicted Manafort in Virginia on charges that include tax fraud, bank fraud and failing to report foreign bank accounts. That trial is scheduled to begin July 25.

The former Trump campaign chairman, who has pleaded not guilty to all the charges, was placed under house arrest after his initial October indictment. But Jackson last Friday ordered the ex-Trump aide jailed pending his trials after prosecutors claimed Manafort attempted to tamper with the testimony of two potential witnesses in the Washington case.

Ahead of the Washington trial, which is slated to begin Sept. 17, Manafort’s defense team tried to get the storage-locker evidence suppressed from the case by claiming the agent’s initial entry was illegal because the employee didn’t have the authority to let them into the locker. His lawyers also argued that the warrant was too broad and that the FBI took more from the locker than the warrant allowed.

Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

But Jackson rejected the defendant’s pleading, noting the employee who allowed the FBI agent into the unit was identified as the lessee of the locker, had a key to the premises and also gave the bureau written permission to go inside.

“Law enforcement agents do not need a warrant to enter a location if they have voluntary consent, and they do not need to have the consent of the person under investigation if they receive permission from a third party who has, or who reasonably appears to have, common authority over the place to be searched,” she wrote in her 36-page opinion. “Therefore, the preliminary inspection of the unit falls within the consent exception to the warrant requirement.”

Jackson’s ruling Thursday also said the FBI did not violate Manafort’s Fourth Amendment rights because the agent submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons “to believe that Manafort had been engaged in criminal activity in the conduct of his business, and that his business records had been moved to, and remained in, the locker rented for that purpose.”

She also said the warrant was not overbroad since it called for records related to specific offenses.

“And even if this Court were to conclude that the warrant could or should be have been more tightly drawn, the agents relied in good faith on a warrant that had been reviewed and signed by a United States Magistrate Judge, and therefore, the evidence seized during the execution of the warrant should not, and will not, be excluded,” she wrote.

Jackson’s ruling Thursday applies only to Manafort’s Washington trial. A separate motion from Manafort raising the same issues ahead of his Virginia trial are still awaiting arguments and a judge’s ruling.

In a separate order Thursday, Jackson spelled out three directives for Manafort while he’s being held in a Warsaw, Virginia, jail. He must be confined “to the extent practicable” apart from other inmates awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending an appeal; have a “reasonable opportunity” to meet in private with his attorneys; and be brought to the court for any proceedings if summoned by the judge or a Mueller attorney.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.