Judge Temporarily Bars Use of Evidence in Dismissed Comey Case

A federal judge on Saturday temporarily prohibited prosecutors from using a cache of files taken from Daniel Richman, a law professor and former attorney for James Comey, after finding Richman was likely to prevail on a constitutional challenge. The order by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly followed a lawsuit in which Richman alleged prosecutors had retained and searched material copied from his electronic devices during prior investigations in 2019 and 2020 without obtaining a warrant.

Judge Kollar Kotelly granted the temporary restraining order after concluding Richman had shown a likelihood of success on his Fourth Amendment claim that the government had violated his rights by keeping a complete image of his personal computer and examining that image without judicial authorization. The judge directed prosecutors to identify, segregate and secure the seized materials, barred any access without court approval and set a compliance deadline. The restraining order remains in effect through December 12 unless the court takes further action.

Prosecutors had relied on files taken from Richman in an indictment that charged Comey with making false statements and obstructing Congress with respect to his 2020 testimony about FBI leaks. That criminal case was dismissed on November 24 after another judge concluded the lead prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed, a ruling that already called into question the validity of the indictment and the pathway for any subsequent prosecution.

The new order sharpens the legal obstacles facing the Justice Department as it weighs whether to bring further charges in the matter. By restricting access to the materials that informed the dismissed indictment, the decision could affect the department's evidentiary posture and ability to refile or reframe allegations. Court documents indicate the department is considering its options, but the temporary restraining order places the files beyond prosecutorial reach without additional judicial review.

Legal experts say the case highlights two intersecting institutional issues. First, the ruling stresses the constitutional limits on government searches of digital devices and the importance of warrants or other judicial authorizations when retaining and examining full forensic images. Second, the sequence of events that led to dismissal of the indictment has intensified scrutiny of appointment practices within the Justice Department and of procedural safeguards that protect defendants and third parties alike.

The judge's order also has ramifications for civil liberties advocates and for prosecutors who routinely rely on forensic copies of electronic devices in investigations. Courts will watch whether the government can demonstrate a lawful basis for retaining and searching the files, or whether the material must be excluded from future proceedings. The segregate and secure requirement imposes an immediate chain of custody obligation that could shape the handling of similar evidence in other investigations.

As the calendar moves toward the December 12 deadline, the next steps could include motions to vacate or modify the temporary order, an evidentiary hearing, or an application for a preliminary injunction. Each option would further test the balance between investigative imperatives and constitutional protections, while the Justice Department decides whether to pursue additional indictments in the wake of the prior dismissal.