{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "126",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 239\n\nbehavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible.\" Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166.\n\nThis does not mean that only action undertaken directly by the Government may violate the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.\" (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).\n\nHowever, this standard \"is not satisfied when the state merely approves of or acquiesces in the initiatives of the private entity, or when an entity is merely subject to governmental regulation.\" Id. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted; alterations incorporated)). Nor is it sufficient that a non-government entity chooses to cooperate with a government investigation or has its own parallel investigation. See id. at 150. Non-government action is attributable to the government \"only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains.\" Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). \"Such responsibility is normally found when the State 'has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.'\" Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005).\n\nb. Discussion\n\nAs an initial matter, the defendant's Fifth Amendment claim fails because she has not demonstrated state action. Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at any time during the course of the Government's investigation, including when it initiated the civil",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible.\" Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166.\n\nThis does not mean that only action undertaken directly by the Government may violate the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.\" (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).\n\nHowever, this standard \"is not satisfied when the state merely approves of or acquiesces in the initiatives of the private entity, or when an entity is merely subject to governmental regulation.\" Id. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted; alterations incorporated)). Nor is it sufficient that a non-government entity chooses to cooperate with a government investigation or has its own parallel investigation. See id. at 150. Non-government action is attributable to the government \"only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains.\" Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). \"Such responsibility is normally found when the State 'has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.'\" Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005).\n\nb. Discussion\n\nAs an initial matter, the defendant's Fifth Amendment claim fails because she has not demonstrated state action. Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at any time during the course of the Government's investigation, including when it initiated the civil",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "99",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003060",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1982",
      "2005",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "479 U.S. at 166",
      "541 F.3d 130",
      "457 U.S. 991",
      "396 F.3d 178",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003060"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the Fifth Amendment and the concept of state action. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}