Trump team to sue Justice Department over FBI’s raid for classified documents

It's hard to judge the merits of the cases since he hasn't filed a complaint yet, but based on what we know, I doubt he will succeed. First off, the claim is apparently for $15M in compensatory damages and $85M in punitive damages. The problem with that is that the FTCA doesn't allow for punitive damages. As for the causes of action, I can't see them satisfying the elements of any of them. Let's start with the easy one, intrusion. Intrusion upon seclusion is defined the following way.

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Click to expand...

There are four main elements to the tort, but I'm not going to even bother listing them all because it fails at the first. The first element is an "intentional intrusion" which has been defined

"only if he/[she] believes, or is substantially certain, that he/[she] lacks the necessary legal or personal permission to commit the intrusive act ... [T]he intrusion, as well as the action, must be intentional."

Wolfson v. Lewis, 924 F. Supp. 1413 (E.D. Pa. 1996)​

Click to expand...

In this case, the FBI agents did have that legal permission in the form of a judicially issued warrant. Let's look at the malicious prosecution claim. Here's how Florida defines that tort

an action for malicious prosecution lies in all cases where there is a concurrence of the following elements: (1) The commencement or continuance of an original civil or criminal judicial proceeding, (2) Its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding. (3) Its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff, (4) The absence of probable cause for such proceeding, (5) The presence of malice therein, (6) Damage conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff. If any one of these elements is lacking, the result is fatal to the action. Duval Jewelry Company V. Smith 102 Fla.717 (Fla. 1931)

Click to expand...

So let's say that the first three elements have been met. The last three need to be proven, and that will be very difficult for Trump. The case was dismissed, that is true. But it wasn't dismissed for probable cause reasons. And even if that prong was successful, they would have to prove malice. According to what his lawyer said on Fox, they are going to try and do so by claiming that the DoJ violated it's own internal policy and that is proof of malice. But the Justice Manual, where that policy is found says this.

The Justice Manual provides internal DOJ guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigation prerogatives of DOJ.

Click to expand...

Abuse of Process is similar, but a bit simpler. It doesn't require the plaintiff to prove lack of probable cause or for the case to be ended in their favor.

An action for abuse of process lies if prosecution is initiated legitimately but is thereafter used for a purpose other than that intended by the law. Pottinger V. City of Miami 810 F.Supp. 1551 (1992)

Click to expand...

So they would need to prove that there was an illegitimate purpose for the prosecution. That will be hard to do, especially since any documents regarding the investigation at the DoJ will be subject to privilege which would need to be overcome. So based on my research, I see this more as a media strategy then a legal one.

HARK! said:

It would be useful to gather intel on who else was involved in this witch hunt.

Click to expand...

They found boxes of stolen witches all throughout his property, didn't they?

HARK! said:

Do you mean that guy who heads the Executive branch that is on a witch hunt for Trump?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't make up things like that which never happened to try and salvage some failed talking point.