DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Fourth Amendment motion by an individual named Maxwell should be dismissed. The core argument is that Maxwell lacks legal standing to make the claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the files of a third-party law firm that represented her adversary in a separate civil litigation. The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the position that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on behalf of others.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal motion, whose Fourth Amendment claim is being challenged.
|
| Carpenter | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Carpenter v. United States'.
|
| Haqq | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Haqq'.
|
| Rakas | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Rakas v. Illinois'.
|
| Payner | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Payner'.
|
| Villegas | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Villegas'.
|
| Chuang | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Chuang'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party that relied on a judicial order for a subpoena.
|
| United States | government |
Party in several cited legal cases (e.g., Carpenter v. United States, United States v. Haqq).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's Fourth Amendment motion is being challenged on the grounds that she lacks standing.
A subpoena was issued, which the document claims was lawful and relied upon in good faith by the Government.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'Rakas v. Illinois'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's legal argument against Maxwell's Fourth Amendment motion in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (5)
"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."Source
— U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment
(Quoted to define the protections of the Fourth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
Quote #1
"The basic purpose of this Amendment . . . is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials."Source
— Carpenter v. United States
(Cited to explain the fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
Quote #2
"It has been clear for a generation that ‘Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights . . . [that] may not be vicariously asserted.’"Source
— United States v. Haqq (quoting Rakas v. Illinois)
(Cited to argue that Fourth Amendment rights cannot be claimed on behalf of another party.)
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
Quote #3
"are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party."Source
— United States v. Payner
(Cited to establish that a defendant's own privacy must be invaded for a Fourth Amendment violation to occur.)
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
Quote #4
"whether [a] defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched."Source
— United States v. Chuang
(Cited to define the core inquiry of a Fourth Amendment claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,045 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 109 of 239
2. Maxwell’s Fourth Amendment Claim Fails
Maxwell’s Fourth Amendment motion is premised on a wholly unsupported expansion of the law. Because Maxwell lacked a privacy interest in the files of a third party law firm who represented her adversary in civil litigation, and because the subpoena was entirely lawful, she cannot make out a Fourth Amendment violation. Moreover, even if Maxwell had standing to assert this claim, it would nonetheless fail because the Government relied in good faith on a judicial order permitting compliance with its subpoena.
a. Maxwell Has Not Established Standing
i. Applicable Law
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend IV. “The basic purpose of this Amendment . . . is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “It has been clear for a generation that ‘Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights . . . [that] may not be vicariously asserted.’” United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights “are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party.” United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is “whether [a] defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.” United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). This threshold question involves two separate inquiries: (1) whether a defendant has demonstrated a subjective
82
DOJ-OGR-00003043
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document