{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "140",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 22\nAmendment rights); see also People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925, 936 (Colo. 2009) (concluding that a taxpayer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information conveyed to his tax preparer because \"state and federal laws . . . shield a taxpayer's return from unfettered access by government officials\"). Because she did not voluntarily offer her , and because she reasonably believed  was and would remain private under the Protective Order, Maxwell had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in her  even though the government obtained them from a third party other than her attorneys. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d at 1090 (\"DAS's current possession of [Kitzhaber's] emails does not vitiate that claim. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Kitzhaber's interests therefore attach to the things seized, not merely to the place where they are located.\" (cleaned up)).\nC. The government's subpoena to  was an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment seizure.\nAlthough Fourth Amendment challenges typically involve \"the subsequent search of the container rather than to its initial seizure by the authorities, . . . a seizure of personal property is per se unreasonable\" under the \"Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.\" Smith, 462 U.S. at 701–02. Here, the government . The government did not obtain a warrant, nor did it establish probable cause for the seizure. For this additional reason, this Court should suppress the  and all material Maxwell designated as confidential.\nII. The government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.\nBy issuing a , the government circumvented the Second Circuit's",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Amendment rights); see also People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925, 936 (Colo. 2009) (concluding that a taxpayer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information conveyed to his tax preparer because \"state and federal laws . . . shield a taxpayer's return from unfettered access by government officials\"). Because she did not voluntarily offer her , and because she reasonably believed  was and would remain private under the Protective Order, Maxwell had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in her  even though the government obtained them from a third party other than her attorneys. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d at 1090 (\"DAS's current possession of [Kitzhaber's] emails does not vitiate that claim. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Kitzhaber's interests therefore attach to the things seized, not merely to the place where they are located.\" (cleaned up)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The government's subpoena to  was an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment seizure.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although Fourth Amendment challenges typically involve \"the subsequent search of the container rather than to its initial seizure by the authorities, . . . a seizure of personal property is per se unreasonable\" under the \"Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.\" Smith, 462 U.S. at 701–02. Here, the government . The government did not obtain a warrant, nor did it establish probable cause for the seizure. For this additional reason, this Court should suppress the  and all material Maxwell designated as confidential.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By issuing a , the government circumvented the Second Circuit's",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002563",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Kitzhaber",
      "Gutierrez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Colo"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 140",
      "JK-15-029",
      "222 P.3d 925",
      "828 F.3d at 1090",
      "462 U.S. at 701–02",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002563"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being protected."
}