Filed: Jul. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER L. PATRICK AULD , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on a Motion to Seal filed by the United States in each of the three, related, above-captioned cases. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant those Motions to Seal in part by directing the Clerk to docket in the publicly-available, electronic and physical files for these cases only a redacted version of the common affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant applications
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER L. PATRICK AULD , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on a Motion to Seal filed by the United States in each of the three, related, above-captioned cases. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant those Motions to Seal in part by directing the Clerk to docket in the publicly-available, electronic and physical files for these cases only a redacted version of the common affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant applications i..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. PATRICK AULD, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on a Motion to Seal filed by the United States in each of the three, related, above-captioned cases. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant those Motions to Seal in part by directing the Clerk to docket in the publicly-available, electronic and physical files for these cases only a redacted version of the common affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant applications in these cases, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2) and consistent with the common law right of access to search warrant affidavits.
I. BACKGROUND
Upon the submission of sworn applications by a federal law enforcement officer, the Court issued search warrants in the above-captioned cases. Those applications included a common affidavit by the submitting officer detailing facts and circumstances concerning an investigation into offenses involving a child victim, including enticement of a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) and/or (b), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), and receipt and/or possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (5) (B). Following the execution of those warrants, a federal law enforcement officer made the required returns and the United States moved for sealing of the common affidavit submitted in support of the warrants. Upon inquiry from the Court, the United States agreed that redaction of portions of the affidavit (rather than wholesale sealing of the affidavit) should occur. The United States subsequently tendered a version of the affidavit reflecting its requested redactions.
II. DISCUSSION
"The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern." Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978). As a result, "the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Put another way, "the press and the public have a common law qualified right of access to judicial records. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41([i]) facilitates observance of this right by directing the judicial officer to file all papers relating to [a] search warrant in the clerk's office." Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted); see also id. at 64-65 (holding that "affidavits for search warrants are judicial records," but explaining that only common law right of access and not First Amendment right of access applies to such affidavits). However, "in accordance with the principles explained in Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599, . . . the [judicial] officer may file all or some of the papers under seal for a stated time or until further order." Goetz, 886 F.2d at 65.
More specifically, "[t]he judicial officer may deny [public] access when sealing is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In that event, the judicial officer must consider alternatives to sealing the documents. This ordinarily involves disclosing some of the documents or giving access to a redacted version." Id. at 65-66 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the United States seeks redaction of certain portions of the common affidavit to preserve a higher value expressly recognized by 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), i.e., the interest in protecting the minor victim from emotional and psychological harm that could accompany the disclosure of her identity and/or graphic details of the alleged offense conduct. The statute in question provides for the sealing of court-filed materials "that disclose the name of or any other information concerning a child." Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(2)(A) (defining "child" as a minor "victim of a crime of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or exploitation"); 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2)(A) & (B) (directing filing party to submit "the complete paper to be kept under seal" and "the paper with the portions of it that disclose the name of or any other information concerning the child redacted, to be placed in the public record"); Rodriguez v. United States Dep't of Army, 31 F.Supp.3d 218, 236-37 (D.D.C. 2014) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) as exempting from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act "the statements and drawings of the child victim. . . and the medical records of the child victim"). The Court further concludes that the redactions proposed by the United States satisfy the Court's obligation to narrowly tailor any sealing order to serve the interest recognized by Section 3509(d)(2).1
III. CONCLUSION
The facts and circumstances of this case warrant redaction of the common affidavit submitted in support of the search warrants in the above-captioned cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Seal filed by the United States in each of the above-captioned cases is GRANTED IN PART in that the Clerk shall docket in the publicly-available electronic and physical file of these cases only the redacted version of the common affidavit forwarded to the Clerk with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted copy of the affidavits submitted in support of the search warrants in the above-captioned cases shall be SEALED.