mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003047.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "113",
    "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 113 of 239\nat 10), the Court should reject the defendant's efforts to twist Carpenter's exception to the third party rule beyond recognition. The defendant was not compelled to participate in the deposition or to answer questions without invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; she voluntarily chose to do so. Even if she chose to do so in reliance on the protective order, that protective order was subject to modification under well-settled case law and by its own terms.\nContrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transactions without a warrant as defendant \"assumed the risk that [eBay] would reveal to police the purchases he made\" and defendant \"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of his purchases\").\nBecause Maxwell had no legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the materials in Boies Schiller's possession, she has no standing to challenge their seizure, and no warrant was required to obtain those materials. Her motion should be rejected on this ground alone.\nb. The Government Acted in Good Faith\nEven if the defendant had standing to bring this motion, it still fails because the Government only obtained these materials after obtaining a court order authorizing it to do so. The Government accordingly acted in good faith when it acted pursuant to that judicial order.\ni. Applicable Law\nUnder the so-called \"good faith\" exception, the exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression do not apply \"when the Government 'act[s] with an \"objectively reasonably good-faith belief that their conduct is lawful.\"'\" United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).\n86\nDOJ-OGR-00003047",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 113 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "at 10), the Court should reject the defendant's efforts to twist Carpenter's exception to the third party rule beyond recognition. The defendant was not compelled to participate in the deposition or to answer questions without invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; she voluntarily chose to do so. Even if she chose to do so in reliance on the protective order, that protective order was subject to modification under well-settled case law and by its own terms.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transactions without a warrant as defendant \"assumed the risk that [eBay] would reveal to police the purchases he made\" and defendant \"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of his purchases\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because Maxwell had no legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the materials in Boies Schiller's possession, she has no standing to challenge their seizure, and no warrant was required to obtain those materials. Her motion should be rejected on this ground alone.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "b. The Government Acted in Good Faith",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the defendant had standing to bring this motion, it still fails because the Government only obtained these materials after obtaining a court order authorizing it to do so. The Government accordingly acted in good faith when it acted pursuant to that judicial order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the so-called \"good faith\" exception, the exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression do not apply \"when the Government 'act[s] with an \"objectively reasonably good-faith belief that their conduct is lawful.\"'\" United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "86",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003047",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carpenter",
      "Maxwell",
      "Schaefer",
      "Zodhiates",
      "Davis"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "eBay",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Or."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Jan. 17, 2019",
      "2018",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "17 Cr. 400 (HZ)",
      "2019 WL 267711",
      "564 U.S. 229",
      "901 F.3d 137",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003047"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}