House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 140.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 22
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 88%
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S SUBPOENA TO 3 A ND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ-OGR-00002549 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......... cee eeeeeeececesssceecesssneeeecesssneececsssaeeecessssaeeecessaseeeecnssasesceesssasessnssanees 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... eee eeeesceeceessneeeecesssneececnssaceecessssaeeecnsaseeeecsssaseecesssasessnesaaas il FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1.0... ee eeeeeeeesseeeceeesnececesssneeeecesaneeeeenssaeeecesssaeeecessasaeeesessaeeee snes ] ARGUMENT. .........::ccsesssseececssssceeceessssceecesssseececesaceeeecsssaceecessssasescessanaeeecessaseeeeesssaeesceesaaeee se 2 I. The government’s violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression. ..............0000 2 A. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally OVETDIOAM, 0.0... eee cece ceseeseeseeeseceseessecaeecseeseeeseessecsaesaeecaeesaeeseesseesaesneesaeesaeeseeeeesaeeneesaeeseeeseees 4 B. The government’s subpoena to J was an unconstitutional warrantless Fourth ATR STAMEHL-SEATER oss co carnasaconasss extesxasa canes cssmeanncaKONS cAAeRene. KIRAN va. AERGPA CARERS oa ARNT eI 6 1. The third-party doctrine does not compel a different result […]