Justin Levitt says the warrant applications showed no probable cause and were improper
Professor of law at Loyola Law School and election law scholar, writing in Lawfare
“The applications, like earlier investigations in Riverside, identified no probable cause to believe that the ballots to be seized would yield evidence of any criminal act. And that makes the warrants not only improper but also a misplaced displacement of authority from one sphere to another that the California Supreme Court can and should address.”
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
Election law scholar Justin Levitt's Lawfare analysis of the Riverside County warrants after the August 24 oral argument.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The article was published after the August 24 oral argument in the California Supreme Court.
After the quotation
Levitt wrote that systems for reviewing and auditing elections belong to civil processes, while the criminal process is meant to address intentional malfeasance.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: The Riverside County Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the county's Proposition 50 ballots and other election materials under search warrants issued by a judge, because Elections Code section 15551(d) can be read to permit a seizure under a valid judicial warrant.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Levitt says the applications showed no probable cause and calls the warrants improper, which expressly rejects the basis for the seizure.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Chad Bianco
Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseCampaign Legal Center
“Sheriff Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots is a dangerous escalation and blatantly unlawful intrusion by law enforcement … In Riverside County and a growing number of localities across the country, actions like this risk disrupting critical chain of custody procedures, endangering sensitive voter data, sidestepping recount and contest procedures, and amplifying baseless claims, ultimately undermining the freedom to vote.”Read statement
“Governor Gavin Newsom today released the following statement in response to the California Supreme Court ruling Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco illegally seized hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election … Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government. And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again. People deserve to know their ballot is counted and secure, and in California we will do everything we can to protect that constitutional right — this year, and beyond.”Read statement
“Election fraud can and should be investigated. But misuse of criminal investigative tools — without any evidence that a crime was committed — needlessly undermines trust in our elections system and in law enforcement. After the Sheriff took the extraordinary step of obtaining warrants to seize control over voted ballots, I made a modest request to him: pause your investigation, preserve all evidence, and provide the information needed for my office to review the allegations. Instead, Sheriff Bianco pressed forward with the seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots. The Court has now made clear that this kind of defiance cannot stand, that the Attorney General has the authority to intervene when sheriffs take improper action, and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials.”Read statement