Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation were, according to an “Operations Order” obtained by President Trump, authorized to use “deadly force” during the search of Mar-a-Lago, when they combed his abode for stashes of secret documents brought to Palm Beach from the White House.  

According to a new filing on Tuesday from Mr. Trump, the agents who conducted the search in August 2022 were greenlit to bring with them “Standard Issue Weapon[s],” “Ammo,” “Handcuffs,” and “medium and large sized bolt cutters.” They were instructed, though, to wear “unmarked polo or collared shirts” and to keep “law enforcement equipment concealed.” 

On Tuesday, the FBI issued a statement asserting that it “followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.” 

The Department of Justice’s manual explains that “law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary.”

The disclosures surfaced on Judge Aileen Cannon’s docket on the same day that Mr. Trump filed his own brief arguing that the secret documents at Mar-a-Lago should be suppressed as evidence, and that the indictment handed up by Special Counsel Jack Smith ought to be dismissed in its entirety. The dueling briefs signal a new stage in the case. 

Mr. Trump contends that the “raid of Mar-a-Lago was unconstitutional” and that “what was unthinkable with respect to President Clinton’s recordings, and deemed unwarranted with respect to Hillary Clinton’s destruction of evidence, was determined to be appropriate by the Biden Administration.”

Mr. Smith’s 29-page response aspires to persuade Judge Cannon that the government handled the evidence it collected in an appropriate fashion. The 45th president accuses Mr. Smith of “spoliation,” and the special counsel has admitted to providing the judge with an “inconsistent” account of the state of the secret documents. He did not address that issue on Tuesday. 

The special counsel writes that the “investigation in this case adopted a measured, graduated approach” in the face of “obstruction and deceit” from Mr. Trump and his camarilla, whom he accuses of stashing more than 180 classified documents at Palm Beach. Mr. Smith maintains that Mr. Trump “identifies no plausible basis to suppress the fruits” of the FBI’s search.

The 45th president disputes that assessment, pointing out that agents took 42 pictures of wife Melania Trump’s bedroom and 27 of son Barron’s — no documents were found at those quarters — and venturing that the “warrant conferred extraordinary and improper discretion on FBI agents to seize essentially every document at Mar-a-Lago.”       

 Mr. Trump challenges the warrant under whose aegis the search was conducted. The Fourth Amendment ordains that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The former president argues that Mr. Smith’s underlying affidavit was not sufficiently detailed to meet this standard. 

Mr. Smith defends his omission of a discussion of presidential prerogative by arguing that Mr. Trump’s “authority to access or possess classified documents during his presidency was both obvious and immaterial to the probable cause determination regarding the retention of the documents after his presidency.” He defends leaving out a discussion of whether Mr. Trump’s consent should have been sought by estimating that such a step “would simply invite more deception.”

Mr. Trump, though, adduced evidence that at least one FBI agent “firmly believed” that “the best scenario would have been consent,” for “the FBI, for former President Trump, and for the country.” A deputy attorney general, though, was captured on tape reflecting that he didn’t “give a damn about the optics” of the FBI searching the home of a former president. 

The special counsel argues that “none of the omissions alleged by Trump, either singly or together, would have had an impact on the magistrate’s common-sense finding of probable cause,” and that his warrant went “well beyond” the constitutional requirements. If a court finds that the government has defaulted on its warrant obligations, evidence could be suppressed.

Mr. Trump shares that what he calls a “roving and highly inappropriate” search — “illegal raid” is his preferred term — explored the “Former First Lady Master Bedroom Suite” and the “Child’s bedroom suite” used by Barron Trump. He calls the manner in which the evidence was collected “egregious” and the documentation deficient because it did not disclose that the “FBI had taken the position—in writing, apparently—that it was not necessary to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.”    

Mr. Smith, though, tells Judge Cannon that the evidence collected at Mar-a-Lago meets a prima facie showing of a crime because it “demonstrates that Trump intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the Nation’s most sensitive documents and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.” He promises to “prove the allegations at trial beyond a reasonable doubt,” though the judge has delayed the trial date indefinitely. 

That delay — and a series of rulings that appear to have tilted the field in favor of Mr. Trump — could be behind Mr. Smith’s declaration that “dismissal of an indictment would be an extraordinary and inappropriate remedy” for the types of missteps the defendants allege.

_____________

This article has been updated to include additional information about the stated policies of the FBI and Justice Department.