From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Chamberlain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jun 6, 2014
Case No. 14-mj-70771 Mag (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 14-mj-70771 Mag.

06-06-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN KELLY CHAMBERLAIN, II, Defendant.


ORDER UNSEALING CASE; and

GRANTING GOVERNMENT'S

MOTION TO SEAL EX. B TO

COMPLAINT AND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

There is a presumed right of public access to "criminal proceedings and documents filed therein." CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 765 F.2d 823, 825 (9th Cir. 1985). The right of access is rooted in the First Amendment and in common law. Id. Still, a district court may seal a document in a criminal proceeding in limited circumstances. United States v. Mann, 829 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 1987). In making a sealing determination, the court must weigh "the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts." Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978).

In this case, the parties agree that the case should be unsealed and that attachment A to the criminal complaint and amended criminal complaint should be unsealed. Attachment A is a search warrant application and order that were incorporated into the complaint application.

The parties also agree that attachment B to the criminal complaint and amended criminal complaint should remain under seal. It is an x-ray image of an alleged destructive device. The image is described in narrative form in the complaint and it has been disclosed to the defense. The government asserts, with support by declaration of an FBI agent with knowledge, that publication of the image could assist other persons in manufacturing destructive devices. The court finds that these concerns present a compelling reason to keep attachment B under seal. Furthermore, the defense is limited in its distribution of attachment B to attorneys, staff and investigators defending the case, absent further court order.

In sum, given the presumption of public access, the court orders as follows:

1. This case is unsealed, with the exception of attachment B to the complaint and amended complaint, which must remain under seal.

2. Attachment A to the complaint and amended complaint is unsealed.

3. This order does not apply to the search warrants executed June 5, 2014. The public is reminded that Mr. Chamberlain, like all persons charged with criminal offenses, is presumed innocent and has a right to remain silent. The information disclosed in the attachments to the complaint includes matters that Mr. Chamberlain has not been charged with, has not been convicted of, and may yet challenge in court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Chamberlain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jun 6, 2014
Case No. 14-mj-70771 Mag (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Chamberlain

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN KELLY CHAMBERLAIN, II…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Jun 6, 2014

Citations

Case No. 14-mj-70771 Mag (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2014)