Charleston police obtain search warrant, seize documents from attorney's investigators
Last Saturday private investigators working for attorney Andy Savage located the remains of Katherine Waring, who had been missing for four months. Apparently the investigators notified the police department once they received information on where the body was located, but the police ignored them and did not go to the location to search. After the investigators found the body, they notified the police department and then turned over all evidence relevant to the investigation to the police.
Following the discovery, the Charleston Sheriff's Office, at the Charleston Police Department's request (the police department had been conducting the investigation, but the Sheriff's Office had jurisdiction over the location where the body was found), seized the vehicle of one of the private investigators and took "photographs, notes, and other items" from the car. Andy Savage filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking the return of the items, unspecified damages, and a temporary restraining order to prevent authorities from viewing, using, or sharing the information seized, alleging that all relevant materials had been turned over to the authorities prior to the seizure and that the materials seized included sensitive information protected by attorney client privilege related not only to the Waring case but to other cases.
Yesterday it was announced that a resolution had been reached, in which the materials would be returned and then Savage would turn them over to the solicitor - whether this means the lawsuit is dropped, I don't know.
It appears that Savage was representing only the interests of the victim in this case, but this type of action has implications for defense attorneys as well. Similar to the raid on defense lawyer Keith Gore's office in Texas last year, prosecutors and/or law enforcement agencies cross the line when they run rough-shod over attorney client privilege. (A hearing had been scheduled to determine if the materials sought from Gore's office were privileged or not, and just days before the hearing the prosecution sought and obtained a search warrant for Gore's office from a different judge). In South Carolina, police can obtain a search warrant upon the signature of a municipal court judge or magistrate, which provides no real protection against abuse of the process in some cases.
I'm not saying there is never a situation where it is appropriate for a law office or employee's belongings to be searched, but when privileged materials are likely to be the subject of the search, there needs to be additional safeguards in place. Before any warrant is issued for an attorney's office or the property of an employee of an attorney, the existence of probable cause should be fully heard before a circuit court judge - once the materials have been seized and viewed, there is no going back and there is no real way to protect privileged information at that point. If we allow authorities to obtain search warrants upon the signature of a municipal recorder or any lower court judge, the authorities will abuse the process - our offices, homes, vehicles, and those of our employees are not safe and there is no guarantee that our clients Sixth Amendment rights will be protected.
