An existing indictment (even under seal) would generally stop the statute of limitations clock.
But what we also don't know, if this speculation is correct, is why they wouldn't have immediately arrested the target here (presumably a public official) once that indictment had been issued. There are a few possibilities (e.g. someone is cooperating against other defendants), but without more information, we can't do anything more than speculate.
@mattblaze I was hoping you'd weigh in on this story, and boy am I glad you did!
A federal search warrant comes in two parts: the warrant itself, which authorizes the search and is signed by a judge/magistrate, and a supporting affidavit establishing probable cause that there is evidence of a specific crime to be seized (signed by an investigator). The latter is often sealed until arrests are made, but the warrant is generally unsealed at the time of execution. It identifies the items to be seized, and also the court, judge and docket number.
Also, unless it's a "no-knock" warrant (which the Fulton County was not), a copy goes to the people being searched at the time it's executed. So Fulton County surely has a copy.
@mattblaze They shared it with the local NBC affiliate. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/warrant-lists-items-to-be-seized-fulton-county-elections-office/85-bf118f50-9a7a-4321-a4ca-e384edf8bcad
@linuxandyarn Thanks! I HATE news orgs that don't post source docs. Grrr.
@mattblaze I texted them with a request they publish it.
https://www.11alive.com/contact-us
Anyway, I want to see the warrant because it will tell us what court issued it, what the FBI was looking for, and a docket number that might give some insight into what specific crimes are being investigated here.
The affidavit (which I'm less hopeful is unsealed) will be especially enlightening, because it is a sworn statement that has to articulate specific facts that establish probable cause about a specific crime for which there is evidence to be seized. (Not merely general suspicion).
Ah, @lawfare got the affidavit, which you can read here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/ . Thanks @linuxandyarn for calling it to my attention!
Lawfare's analysis is quite good (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/we-have-questions-about-the-fbi-s-fulton-county-search); I won't add much to it except to highlight a few notable things below.
First, the predicate crimes for the warrant are 52 USC § 20511 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:20511%20edition:prelim) and 52 USC § 20701 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:20701%20edition:prelim), and the warrant seeks records for the 2020 general election.
20701 requires certain election records to be retained for 22 months after the election; note that well over 22 months have already elapsed since the election, so it's unclear how the presence or absence of any 2020 records in the warehouse today would shed light on whether this section was violated.
@mattblaze A Fulton Co. official this morning talking to NPR (I missed his name…) said that the affidavit was sealed, so he didn’t know what the basis was for the warrant.
@mattblaze When the raid was happening, it was reported as a sealed warrant. Haven't seen any news yet about it being unsealed, or even who signed it.
@linuxandyarn It's weird - the warrant itself (listing the items to be seized) is usually unsealed once executed.
@mattblaze If this administration manages to do anything in the usual legal way I might have a heart attack from the shock.
@linuxandyarn Well, this is the courts. Also, Fulton County almost certainly has a copy of what was served on them, and could make it public.
