mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003054.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "120",
    "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 120 of 239\nconsidered the Government's application and then issued a lengthy opinion ruling on that application, the Government was entirely reasonable in its understanding that the order was lawful. It was therefore similarly reasonable for the Government to obtain materials from Boies Schiller in response to the subpoena that had been analyzed and blessed by a court order. The Government acted with an \"objectively reasonable good-faith belief\" that its conduct was lawful and in reasonable reliance on the district court's order. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\nc. Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine\nTo the extent materials the Government obtained from Boies Schiller have now been unsealed and posted on the public docket, there is no basis to suppress such materials because the Government would have inevitably been able to access them upon unsealing.\ni. Applicable Law\nUnder the inevitable discovery doctrine, \"evidence that was illegally obtained will not be suppressed 'if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably' even if there had been no statutory or constitutional violation.\" United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671, 675-76 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984)). When a claim of inevitable discovery is raised, the court must \"determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search occurred, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.\" Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (The application of the inevitable discovery doctrine \"turns on a central question: Would the disputed evidence inevitably have been found through legal means 'but for' the constitutional violation? If the answer is 'yes,' the evidence seized will not be excluded.\")\n93\nDOJ-OGR-00003054",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 120 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "considered the Government's application and then issued a lengthy opinion ruling on that application, the Government was entirely reasonable in its understanding that the order was lawful. It was therefore similarly reasonable for the Government to obtain materials from Boies Schiller in response to the subpoena that had been analyzed and blessed by a court order. The Government acted with an \"objectively reasonable good-faith belief\" that its conduct was lawful and in reasonable reliance on the district court's order. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "c. Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent materials the Government obtained from Boies Schiller have now been unsealed and posted on the public docket, there is no basis to suppress such materials because the Government would have inevitably been able to access them upon unsealing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i. Applicable Law",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, \"evidence that was illegally obtained will not be suppressed 'if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably' even if there had been no statutory or constitutional violation.\" United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671, 675-76 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984)). When a claim of inevitable discovery is raised, the court must \"determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search occurred, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.\" Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (The application of the inevitable discovery doctrine \"turns on a central question: Would the disputed evidence inevitably have been found through legal means 'but for' the constitutional violation? If the answer is 'yes,' the evidence seized will not be excluded.\")",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "93",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003054",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1984",
      "1988",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003054"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}