Mike Lindell to Appeal Judge’s Denial of Request to Have Phone Seized by FBI Returned

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell will appeal a federal judge’s rejection on Nov. 3 of his request to have his cell phone returned to him after it was seized by the FBI, according to his attorney.

Responding to the judge’s ruling on Friday, Lindell’s attorney Andrew Parker told The Epoch Times that the government had “no right” to seize all the information on his client’s phone.

“The government has taken Mike Lindell’s cell phone and is looking through thousands of pieces of private information including his contacts, associations, financial and business information, medical information, and other personal information,” the attorney, with law firm Parker Daniels Kibort, said in a statement.

“While the government has certain latitude to conduct investigations, it has no right to seize and rifle through a person’s entire life (which is often stored on one’s cellphone) when that information is wholly unrelated to any investigation.”

In September, Lindell filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI following the FBI’s Sept. 13 seizure of his phone while he was at a Hardee’s drive-through in Mankato, Minnesota.

According to the search warrant, signed Sept. 7 by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, Lindell is being probed along with several other “co-conspirators,” including Mesa County, Colorado, election clerk Tina Peters, who was indicted by a grand jury in March on charges relating to an alleged security breach of voting equipment in the county. Peters has maintained her innocence.

The warrant specifies that all records and information on Lindell’s phone “that constitute fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of violations” relating to alleged identity theft, intentional damage to a protected computer, and conspiracy to commit identity theft or cause damage to a protected computer, were subject to seizure.

Parker, noting the broad scope of information available on Lindell’s phone, said “The digital age allows for search segregation of information, and when the government conducts searches without first presenting protocols and safeguards to a court for approval at the time of seeking a warrant to seize the cell phone, they violate the U.S. Constitution. To our knowledge, that did not occur here.”

In his lawsuit, Lindell had requested a preliminary injunction to have the phone returned to him and prohibit the FBI from accessing any data on the device or releasing any information found on it, alleging that the warrant breached his constitutional rights. Lindell also asked that he be granted access to the search warrant materials that justified the need for a warrant.

Mike Lindell speaks in Casper, Wyoming. The rally is being held to support Harriet Hageman, Rep. Liz Cheneys primary challenger in Wyoming, on May 28, 2022. (Chet Strange/Getty Images)

However, on Nov. 3, Judge Eric Tostrud denied those requests, stating that Lindell had failed to prove that the seizure violated his constitutional rights, and that the government had demonstrated “a compelling interest” in the ongoing investigation that outweighed the businessman’s right of access.

“Multiple factors here justify keeping the search warrant materials under seal,” Tostrud said in a 36-page ruling (pdf).

“The extensive, 80-page search warrant affidavit describes in considerable detail ‘the nature, scope, and direction of the government’s investigation and the individuals and specific [activities] involved,’ including information obtained from recorded communications, confidential informants, and cooperating witnesses,” Tostrud continued.

The judge added that the search warrant materials contain information about individuals who are not targets of the investigation, and that releasing them could also compromise the investigation itself.

Parker, however, said that the warrant was reminiscent of the general search warrants that prompted the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

“General search warrants of peoples’ homes were ruled unconstitutional during colonial times,” he said. “This is a modern-day general search warrant and this type of search and seizure of information and property should concern us all.”

The attorney told The Epoch Times that while they have yet to formally file an appeal, it will be done within the 30-day time limit set by the court.

Follow

Samantha Flom is a freelance political reporter for The Epoch Times. A graduate of Syracuse University, she has a background in journalism and nonprofit communications.
Contact her at [email protected].

Follow

Eva Fu is a New York-based writer for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S. politics, U.S.-China relations, religious freedom, and human rights. Contact Eva at [email protected]