{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "49",
    "date": "08/25/20",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 49 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 4\n\nMaxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 5. In a footnote, the defense clarifies that \"[a]s long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 5 n.4.\n\nThe Court sees no basis for granting the Defendant's request for an order directed to BOP. First, the Government has assured the Court that \"[a]s with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff,\" thereby ensuring that Ms. Maxwell's ability to communicate with her counsel is in no way interfered. Dkt. No. 41 at 4 n.5. And as to the more general implementation of surveillance procedures, the Court credits BOP's duty to ensure the safety and security of the Defendant as justifying the measures BOP has adopted. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (\"Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.\") Nor does the Defendant provide any basis for the Court to conclude that the level of surveillance is punitive. Dkt. No. 42 at 5. Though pretrial detainees \"may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law,\" Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535, it does not follow that surveillance measures are punitive just because the Defendant deems them \"onerous.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 4. The Defendant has provided the Court with no evidence, and no reason to believe, that the surveillance measures are motivated by improper purposes.\n\nAs a result, Defendant's request is denied. To ensure that Ms. Maxwell is able to continue to adequately participate in her defense, however, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the 3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001745",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 49 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 5. In a footnote, the defense clarifies that \"[a]s long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 5 n.4.\n\nThe Court sees no basis for granting the Defendant's request for an order directed to BOP. First, the Government has assured the Court that \"[a]s with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff,\" thereby ensuring that Ms. Maxwell's ability to communicate with her counsel is in no way interfered. Dkt. No. 41 at 4 n.5. And as to the more general implementation of surveillance procedures, the Court credits BOP's duty to ensure the safety and security of the Defendant as justifying the measures BOP has adopted. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (\"Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.\") Nor does the Defendant provide any basis for the Court to conclude that the level of surveillance is punitive. Dkt. No. 42 at 5. Though pretrial detainees \"may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law,\" Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535, it does not follow that surveillance measures are punitive just because the Defendant deems them \"onerous.\" Dkt. No. 42 at 4. The Defendant has provided the Court with no evidence, and no reason to believe, that the surveillance measures are motivated by improper purposes.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a result, Defendant's request is denied. To ensure that Ms. Maxwell is able to continue to adequately participate in her defense, however, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001745",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Bell",
      "Wolfish"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BOP",
      "MDC",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/25/20",
      "1979"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 49",
      "Dkt. No. 42",
      "Dkt. No. 41",
      "441 U.S. 520",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001745"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing her detention and surveillance conditions. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 4."
}