United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BERMAN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are two motions filed by defendant Roger J.
Stone, Jr.: a Motion to Suppress [Dkt. # 100]
("Def.'s Mot.") and a Motion to Compel
Unredacted Versions of the Crowdstrike Reports [Dkt. # 103].
With respect to the second motion, the government has stated
that it does not have an unredacted version of the
Crowdstrike reports in its possession, and defendant has
conceded that as a result, the motion is moot. Tr. of Mot.
Hr'g, July 16, 2019 [Dkt. # 205]
("Tr.") at 30-31. Accordingly, the Court will deny
the motion to compel as moot.
the Motion to Suppress, Stone has moved to suppress the
evidence obtained pursuant to eighteen search warrants
executed in this case. He asserts that the factual
underpinnings for all of the warrant applications - that the
Russian government hacked computers belonging to the
Democratic National Committee ("DNC"), the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
("DCCC"), and the chairman of the Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign, and that Russia was responsible for
giving the stolen data to WikiLeaks - are false. Def.'s Mot.
at 1, 4. Stone seeks an evidentiary hearing pursuant to
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156 (1978), and he
has supplied the opinions of two cyber analysts in support of
his motion. Def.'s Mot. at 4-5. Because defendant has
failed to satisfy either prong of the showing necessary to
obtain a Franks hearing, the Court will deny the
motion to suppress.
10, 2019, defendant moved "to suppress all evidence as
fruit of illegal search warrants executed on specified dates
and times." Def.'s Mot. at l. The government
opposed the motion, Gov't Opp. to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #
122] ("Gov't Opp."), defendant replied,
Def.'s Reply to Gov't Opp. [Dkt. # 133]
("Def.'s Reply"), there was a surreply [Dkt. #
137], and the Court heard argument on the motion on July 16,
2019. See Tr.
is charged with making false statements to Congress,
obstructing a congressional proceeding, and tampering with a
witness in connection with that proceeding. See Ind.
indictment alleges that in or around 2017, U.S. government
officials publicly disclosed the existence of ongoing
investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election and possible links to individuals
associated with the presidential campaigns. Ind. ¶ 18.
In the months leading up to the election, WikiLeaks released
tens of thousands of documents stolen from computers
belonging to the DNC and to John Podesta, the chair of the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Ind. ¶ 3. The
indictment also alleges that around the time of the releases,
defendant claimed both publicly and privately that he had
been in contact with WikiLeaks - either directly or through
an intermediary - about the releases. Ind. ¶¶ 6,
early 2017, two congressional committees announced their own
investigations into the matter. Ind. ¶ 18- Defendant
Stone, who had served as a political consultant to the
campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump until approximately
August 2015, Ind. ¶ 4, was called to testify before one
of the committees, the U.S. House of Representatives
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("HPSCI"
or "the Committee"). Ind. ¶ 19. The indictment
arises out of Stone's alleged conduct in connection with
the HPSCI investigation; it alleges that he testified falsely
and that he sought to interfere with the testimony of others.
motion before the Court involves the evidence that may be
introduced at trial. Beginning in mid-2017, law enforcement
agents applied for and obtained warrants to search and seize
evidence from a number of devices, accounts, and premises
owned or controlled by the defendant. See SW1-SW18.
All of the affidavits submitted with the warrant applications
included statements referring to conclusions reached by the
U.S. intelligence community or by Crowdstrike, a
cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC to investigate the
intrusion into its computers, that Russian actors were
responsible for infiltrating the target computers and/or
delivering the stolen data to WikiLeaks.
disputes conclusions, and he submits that their alleged
inaccuracy invalidates the warrants issued based upon the
agents' affidavits. See Def's Reply at 12-13
(identifying the challenged statements).
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures," and it provides that
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Const, amend. IV. The Supreme Court has explained that a
search warrant is supported by probable cause if there is a
"fair probability that... evidence of a crime will be
found in a particular ...