{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "115",
    "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 115 of 239 establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search.\" Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864, 870 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that the \"issuance of a warrant by a neutral magistrate, which depends on a finding of probable cause, creates a presumption that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that there was probable cause\"). Indeed, the good faith exception does not apply only in four narrow circumstances: (1) where the issuing magistrate has been knowingly misled; (2) where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where the application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance upon it unreasonable; and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient that reliance upon it is unreasonable. United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216, 222 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923). The good faith exception analysis applies in the context of court orders. See, e.g., Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (applying good faith analysis in Fourth Amendment challenge to cell phone location information obtained by subpoena issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2)); United States v. Serrano, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) (finding good faith exception would apply to cell site information obtained pursuant to a subpoena authorized by magistrate judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)); United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401, 406, 414-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (applying Leon to § 2703(d) orders for historical cell-site data obtained and finding that the good faith exception applied. ii. Discussion The exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression should not apply here, as the Government issued a grand jury subpoena; sought the materials after applying to the district court for an order to modify the civil protective order; and only obtained the materials after the district court 88 DOJ-OGR-00003049",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 115 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search.\" Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864, 870 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that the \"issuance of a warrant by a neutral magistrate, which depends on a finding of probable cause, creates a presumption that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that there was probable cause\"). Indeed, the good faith exception does not apply only in four narrow circumstances: (1) where the issuing magistrate has been knowingly misled; (2) where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where the application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance upon it unreasonable; and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient that reliance upon it is unreasonable.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216, 222 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923). The good faith exception analysis applies in the context of court orders. See, e.g., Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (applying good faith analysis in Fourth Amendment challenge to cell phone location information obtained by subpoena issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2)); United States v. Serrano, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) (finding good faith exception would apply to cell site information obtained pursuant to a subpoena authorized by magistrate judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)); United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401, 406, 414-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (applying Leon to § 2703(d) orders for historical cell-site data obtained and finding that the good faith exception applied.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ii. Discussion",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression should not apply here, as the Government issued a grand jury subpoena; sought the materials after applying to the district court for an order to modify the civil protective order; and only obtained the materials after the district court",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "88",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003049",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "City of New Haven"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Haven",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "June 10, 2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "13 Cr. 58 (KBF)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003049"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}