mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002558.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "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 10 of 22\ndoes not allow such a sweeping search, which would be nothing but a modern-day general warrant. Id. at 1088.1 This Court should suppress all evidence the government obtained from the subpoena to\nB. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional warrantless Fourth Amendment search.\nApart from its overbreadth, the subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it amounted to a warrantless search without probable cause.\nThe Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351. Thus, \"when an individual 'seeks to preserve something as private,' and [her] expectation of privacy is 'one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,' . . . that official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause.\" Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213 (quoting Smith, 442 U.S. at 740). This definition of a what constitutes a \"search\" \"seeks to secure 'the privacies of life' against 'arbitrary power'\" and \"to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.\" Id. at 2214 (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948)). A \"grand jury is . . . 'without power to invade a legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.'\" United States v. Thomas, 736 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 (1974)).\n1 It is for this reason that this Court should grant Maxwell's Motion for Discovery of every grand jury subpoena. Without being able to examine the grand jury subpoenas, Maxwell cannot evaluate whether other subpoenas issued by the grand jury in connection with this case are unconstitutionally overbroad, as the subpoena to is.\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00002558",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 22\ndoes not allow such a sweeping search, which would be nothing but a modern-day general warrant. Id. at 1088.1 This Court should suppress all evidence the government obtained from the subpoena to",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional warrantless Fourth Amendment search.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Apart from its overbreadth, the subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it amounted to a warrantless search without probable cause.\nThe Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351. Thus, \"when an individual 'seeks to preserve something as private,' and [her] expectation of privacy is 'one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,' . . . that official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause.\" Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213 (quoting Smith, 442 U.S. at 740). This definition of a what constitutes a \"search\" \"seeks to secure 'the privacies of life' against 'arbitrary power'\" and \"to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.\" Id. at 2214 (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948)). A \"grand jury is . . . 'without power to invade a legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.'\" United States v. Thomas, 736 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 (1974)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 It is for this reason that this Court should grant Maxwell's Motion for Discovery of every grand jury subpoena. Without being able to examine the grand jury subpoenas, Maxwell cannot evaluate whether other subpoenas issued by the grand jury in connection with this case are unconstitutionally overbroad, as the subpoena to is.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002558",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "1948",
      "1974",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 140",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002558"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with redactions in certain areas. The text discusses the Fourth Amendment and the constitutionality of a subpoena issued by a grand jury."
}