mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002556.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 22 was in fact a Fourth Amendment search. And even if the government's conduct did not amount to a search, it constituted a seizure, which likewise should have been supported by probable cause and warrant. A. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally overbroad. The subpoena to was unconstitutionally overbroad, and this Court should suppress all evidence produced in response. \"[A]n order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the 4th Amendment.\" Hale, 201 U.S. at 76. Because the Fourth Amendment was drafted with a particular eye to the abuse of general warrants, id. at 71, a subpoena that is \"unreasonably overbroad\" effects an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016). An overbroad subpoena is \"equally indefensible as a search warrant would be if couched in similar terms.\" Id. (quoting Hale, 201 U.S. at 77). A subpoena is overbroad when the government fails to make a \"reasonable effort to request only those documents that are relevant and non-privileged, consistent with the extent of its knowledge about the matter under investigation.\" Id. Here, the government by its own admission made no effort—must less a reasonable effort—to tailor and target the subpoena to . As the prosecutor said to :",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "was in fact a Fourth Amendment search. And even if the government's conduct did not amount to a search, it constituted a seizure, which likewise should have been supported by probable cause and warrant. A. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally overbroad. The subpoena to was unconstitutionally overbroad, and this Court should suppress all evidence produced in response. \"[A]n order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the 4th Amendment.\" Hale, 201 U.S. at 76. Because the Fourth Amendment was drafted with a particular eye to the abuse of general warrants, id. at 71, a subpoena that is \"unreasonably overbroad\" effects an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016). An overbroad subpoena is \"equally indefensible as a search warrant would be if couched in similar terms.\" Id. (quoting Hale, 201 U.S. at 77). A subpoena is overbroad when the government fails to make a \"reasonable effort to request only those documents that are relevant and non-privileged, consistent with the extent of its knowledge about the matter under investigation.\" Id. Here, the government by its own admission made no effort—must less a reasonable effort—to tailor and target the subpoena to . As the prosecutor said to :",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002556",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 140",
      "JK-15-029",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002556"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some names and potentially sensitive information have been redacted."
}