{"id":"court_sdny_279_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":279,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2024-04-12","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice** Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 279 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 10","summary_zh":"动议（法院要求提交的听证会后陈述）——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #279（2024年4月12日提交）。就法院 4 月 9 日围绕同案被告王雁萍（Yanping Wang）“排除证据”动议举行的听证会，检方提交庭后书面陈述，主张王雁萍在明确要求律师在场之前已提供设备解锁密码（含“777777”密码，郭文贵及其助理也曾分别提供同一密码），且即便存在《米兰达》相关瑕疵，FBI 依“不可避免发现”原则本也能通过其他技术手段访问相关设备内容，据此请求法院驳回王雁萍的证据排除动议。","summary_en":"Motion (a post-hearing letter-brief ordered by the court) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 279 (filed April 12, 2024). Following the April 9, 2024 suppression hearing, the government submitted a post-hearing filing arguing that co-defendant Yanping Wang provided her device passcode (including the passcode '777777,' which Guo and his assistant separately provided as well) before clearly invoking her right to counsel, and that even setting aside any Miranda issue, the FBI would inevitably have accessed her devices through other technical means, urging denial of Wang's motion to suppress.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nApril 12, 2024\n\n# **VIA ECF AND EMAIL**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n#### **Re:** *United States v. Yanping Wang***, S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government respectfully writes in response to the Court's request for post-hearing submissions following the April 9, 2024 hearing on defendant Yanping Wang's motion to suppress her statements and the contents of her lawfully seized devices. For the reasons that follow, the Court should deny Wang's motion to suppress.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nOn March 15, 2023, FBI agents arrested defendant Yanping Wang in the hallway outside of her apartment and searched her home for electronic devices pursuant to judicially authorized warrants. Wang identified her phones and their passcodes. In an affidavit submitted in connection with her suppression motion, Wang acknowledges that, once inside her apartment, she provided her passcodes *before* invoking her right to counsel.\n\nAt the hearing, the Court heard live testimony from Special Agent Melissa Baccari who explained that she read Wang her *Miranda* rights in the hallway but planned to wait until they were both inside in a quieter space to begin to question her. Special Agent Baccari testified that Wang eventually asked for a lawyer, but only *after* discussing her phones—cutting off the discussion when Agent Baccari raised the topic of Wang's co-defendant, Miles Guo. Agent Baccari's testimony and Wang's affidavit are therefore consistent that Wang's indoor invocation occurred only after she identified her phones and their passcodes. The sole factual dispute is about what happened in the hallway, where live testimony from an experienced law enforcement agent contradicts the self-serving affidavit of the defendant—which should be disregarded.\n\nOn this record, the Court should find by at least a preponderance of the evidence that \"Wang provided the passwords before invoking her right to counsel . . . and the issue is moot.\" (Dkt. 251, March 22 Order at 22). The record also provides ample support for additional bases to deny Wang's motion. The same 777777 passcode was separately provided to the FBI by Wang's co-defendant—Miles Guo, also known as \"Brother Seven\"—and his personal assistant. It was listed multiple times in a notebook recovered at one of Guo's homes in Mahwah, New Jersey. As a result, it was placed at the top of a list of case-wide passcodes for digital forensic examiners to attempt when they encountered locked devices. Beyond that, at least certain of the disputed devices were susceptible to established tools that the FBI has frequently and successfully used to access locked devices. In other words, the Court can find by at least a preponderance of the evidence that the FBI ultimately would have successfully accessed the locked devices even without Wang providing the passcodes.\n\nWang's motion should be denied.\n\n### **THE RECORD**\n\nThe following facts were established through the testimony and exhibits offered at the April 9, 2024, suppression hearing.\n\n## **I. Wang is Arrested, and Her Home is Searched, Pursuant to Warrants**\n\nEarly on the morning of March 15, 2023, FBI agents arrived at Wang's apartment to execute arrest and search warrants. (Tr. 6:4-5, 6:21-23; GX 26). One of the search warrants authorized the seizure of \"cellphones\" and other \"electronic devices\" that \"may contain\" evidence of the criminal scheme giving rise to Wang's later indictment (GX 26 at 3, 5) (the \"Wang Premises Warrant\"). Agents were further authorized to use \"the biometric sensor of any electronic devices recovered from WANG's person\" to \"unlock the device.\" (*Id.* at 6).\n\nWang came to the door after a group of FBI agents knocked and announced themselves. (Tr. 5:21-6:11). She was placed into custody and walked into the hallway outside of her apartment, where she was received by Special Agent Melissa Baccari and another female agent. (*Id.* 6:9-19, 7:3-4). Agent Baccari, a five-year veteran of the FBI, informed Wang of the arrest and search warrants and read Wang her *Miranda* rights. (*Id.* 6:18-7:4).\n\n# **II. Wang Acknowledges Her Rights and Does Not Invoke**\n\nAfter Agent Baccari read Wang her rights, Wang acted \"as if she understood\" and was \"compliant[].\" (Tr. 7:8-9). Wang did not ask for a lawyer in the hallway. (*Id.* 7:10-11). She did not say she wished to remain silent. (*Id.* 7:12-14). She did not say anything of substance at all in the hallway. (*Id.* 15-16).\n\nThe hallway interaction was brief—just \"a couple of minutes\"—while agents cleared Wang's small apartment. (*Id.* 7:5-7, 8:5-7). During this short initial exchange in the hallway, Agent Baccari did not ask Wang to make a statement. Instead, she \"wanted to bring her inside to the bedroom, inside the apartment.\" (*Id.* 7:17-22). Agent Baccari acted purposefully in declining to ask Wang substantive questions in the hallway: the experienced agent \"wanted to make [Wang] feel a little bit more comfortable instead of asking her questions in the hallway outside . . . in the hopes that she'd like to speak with me\" inside. (*Id.* 7:23-8:4). Wang acted \"compliantly and as if she understood.\" (*Id.* 7:8-9).\n\nAfter the quick period in the hallway, Special Agent Baccari and another female agent walked Wang inside to her bedroom, passing \"a line of phones on the kitchen counter.\" (Tr. 8:5- 17).\n\n# **III. Wang Provides Her Passcodes**\n\nImmediately after they entered Wang's bedroom, Special Agent Baccari \"noted a cell phone near Ms. Wang's bed on the night table\" and \"asked her if this was her phone and the phone that she used every day.\" (Tr. 9:5-11). Wang said \"yes,\" and nothing else, and Special Agent Baccari asked Wang for the phone's passcode. (*Id.* 9:7-13). Wang provided it—\"777777\"—right away, without any additional comment. (*Id.* 9:16-10:6). At that time, Wang had neither asked for a lawyer nor said she wished to remain silent before identifying her phone and its passcode to Special Agent Baccari. (*Id.* 10:7-12).\n\nThe conversation continued: Special Agent Baccari asked Wang about the phones that they had both walked by moments before on the way to Wang's bedroom, and Wang \"said that they were all her phones.\" (*Id.* 10:13-23). Without prompting by Special Agent Baccari and without having asked for a lawyer, Wang elaborated and provided an explanation for why she kept so many phones. (*See id.* 10:19-23 (Wang told Agent Baccari \"that she was a refugee of the CCP, and her phones were constantly getting hacked, and that's why she had so many phones\")).\n\n# **IV. Wang Asks for a Lawyer Only After Providing Her Passcodes**\n\nAgent Baccari \"just acknowledged\" Wang's unsolicited explanation for why she owned so many phones, and then asked Wang a question on a different topic: if she \"knew where Mr. Miles Guo was that morning.\" (Tr. 10:25-11:4). After declining to ask Wang substantive questions in the hallway until the two female agents could make her more comfortable inside, Agent Baccari \"thought I could attempt to interview her at that time\" because \"she had been very compliant, and she was speaking.\" (*Id.* 11:15-24). Wang \"just said no or shook her head no\" to Agent Baccari's question about whether Wang knew Guo's whereabouts, and so Agent Baccari \"asked Ms. Wang if she'd like to speak with us, give me a statement.\" (*Id.* 11:15-21). In response to that question after responding to at least four other questions about her phones, her passcode, and her codefendant—Wang mentioned for the first time that she would like to have an attorney. (*Id.* 11:19- 12:4). At that point, Agent Baccari declined to ask any additional substantive questions, \"because it's not our process to continue to have substantive conversation after someone invokes.\" (*Id.* 12:5-19).\n\nWang's pre-hearing affidavit—uncorroborated in view of her decision not to testify at the hearing, *see supra* 7-8 & n.3—stated that Wang asked for a lawyer outside \"in the hallway,\" but that once \"back into the apartment bedroom,\" Wang \"provided . . . the locations of, and passwords for, electronic devices, in the apartment,\" *before* Wang \"said [she] wanted to speak to a lawyer\" inside. (Dkt. 199-4).\n\n#### **V. Wang's Mobile Devices Are Seized Pursuant to the Wang Premises Warrant**\n\nAgents finished executing the search and ultimately seized various items and devices pursuant to the Wang Premises Warrant. (*See* DX 2 (search 302)[1](#page-3-0) ). In relevant part, the FBI seized 13 mobile devices—12 iPhones and 1 iPad (the \"Wang Mobile Devices\"). (*See* GX-S1). Eight of these devices had the same 777777 passcode; the remaining five either had a different passcode or none at all. (*See id.*)\n\n## **VI. The 777777 Passcode is Also Provided by Miles Guo and His Assistant, and Found in a Notebook in Mahwah, the Same Day**\n\nThat same morning, co-defendant Miles Guo was arrested at his penthouse apartment in Midtown Manhattan. (Tr. 47:13-25). Special Agent Jessica Cardenas collected multiple cellphones from a table in the room where Guo and his assistant, Jason Hu, were detained following their arrest. (*Id.* 48:16-24). Agent Cardenas asked \"everyone that was in the foyer area\" for the passcodes to these phones, and \"the first one to answer was Miles Guo,\" who provided the passcode 777777. (*Id.* 49:12-23). Agent Cardenas then asked for the passcode to another of these phones, and Jason Hu—Guo's assistant—gave the same 777777 passcode for another device. (*Id.* 49:24-50:8). In all, Guo and his assistant gave the 777777 passcode for three devices. (*Id.* 50:9- 11).\n\nThe same 777777 passcode was also listed several times in a notebook recovered from a search of Guo's home in Mahwah, New Jersey. The Mahwah search occurred the same day that Wang, Guo, and Hu provided the 777777 passcode for at least 11 mobile devices. (*See* Tr. 16:7- 9 (Mahwah search on same day); *id.* 50:9-11 (three Guo and Hu devices with 777777 passcode); GX-S1 (eight Wang mobile devices with 777777 passcode)). A notebook seized in Mahwah included at least two references to the same passcode, as shown below. (*See* GX-2A (list of passcodes emailed by case agents to digital forensic examiners citing 777777 passcode as derived from 1B196, a notebook seized in Mahwah); USAO\\_00064116, USAO\\_00064120 (photos of pages cited in GX-2A)).[2](#page-3-1)\n\n![](_page_3_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_3_Figure_8.jpeg)\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Defense counsel offered 3501-05 as Defense Exhibit 2, and it was admitted. (*See* Tr. 33:22- 34:2). Because 3501-05 is only the first page of a document that spans from 3501-05 to 3501-15, the Government refers to the entire document as DX-2.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> USAO\\_00064116 and USAO\\_00064120 were not introduced as evidence at the hearing and come from a notebook that was seized from the Mahwah Mansion. They were produced to the defendants on or about May 12, 2023.\n\n# **VII. The FBI Creates a Passcode List to Share with the Digital Forensic Examiners Analyzing the \"GTV\" Devices**\n\nThe FBI section that processes and analyzes mobile devices is called the Computer Analysis Response Team, or \"CART.\" (Tr. 46:19-47:7). CART examiners sometimes need passcodes to access mobile devices. (*Id.* 64:17-22). When a device's passcode is unknown, CART often consults a \"passcode list,\" which is a series of \"potential [passcodes] that can be compiled by investigators either from other digital evidence items, just observing them from search warrants, and they can compile a list of [passcodes] to test on the devices\" for which a passcode is unknown. (*Id.* 64:23-65:12).\n\nCART referred to a single case called \"GTV\" that encompassed all of the mobile devices seized from at least four locations and belonging to, among others, Guo, Hu, and Wang. (*See* Tr. 47:21-23; 50:15-18; 55:6-8). The FBI case agents for the related investigation created a passcode list and sent it to the CART examiners on the GTV case on May 3, 2023, with the subject line \"GTV – Last Warrant and Potential Passwords/Pins\" (the \"Passcode List\") (GX-2 (email); GX-2A (Passcode List)).\n\n777777 was at the top of the Passcode List's tab labeled \"Pins,\" (*see* GX-2A), and the case agent in the accompanying email asked the CART examiners to \"please try all 7s to start with\" in the event they had to process devices for which a passcode was unknown (*see* GX-2). As described above, the Passcode List's Pins tab identified the source of the 777777 passcode at the top of its list of potential codes sourced from casewide materials as a notebook recovered in the search of Guo's home in Mahwah, New Jersey. (*See* GX-2A, \"Pins\" tab, top row). The Passcode List also followed the provision of the same 777777 passcode by Miles Guo—identified in the thenoperative indictment as, among other things, \"Brother Seven\" and \"the leader of the scheme,\" (Dkt. 2 ¶¶ 1, 6)—and his assistant. (*See* Tr. 48:16-24 (SA Cardenas)).\n\n### **VIII. The Overlapping Alternative Ways the FBI Would Likely Have Accessed the Relevant Wang Mobile Devices**\n\nA. The Relevant Wang Mobile Devices\n\nEight of the Wang Mobile Devices used the 777777 passcode (the \"Wang 777777 Devices\"). The remaining five Wang Mobile Devices either used another passcode or did not have a passcode enabled (the \"Other Wang Devices\"). Accordingly, those five Wang Mobile Devices are not subject to Wang's motion. (*See* GX-S1).\n\n### B. The Passcode List and the Widespread Repetition of 777777 Across Devices From Multiple People at Multiple Locations\n\nAs noted above, CART examiners received the Passcode List on at least May 3, 2023. (*See* GX-2; Tr. 65:23-66:16 (Digital Forensics Examiner (\"DFE\") Volchko identifying GX-2 as \"a password list of potential passwords and Pins\" she and others received in the GTV case)). Two weeks later, DFE Volchko emailed the case agents to note that two of the Wang Mobile Devices required passcodes to be manually entered because they were not susceptible to the FBI's \"brute force\" technique for bypassing devices' passcode protection. (*See* GX-4 at 2). DFE Volchko, who was not at the search of Wang's apartment, (*see* DX-2 at 1 (listing search participants)), asked the case agents in an email she titled \"GTV- PINs for iPhones\" if she should try 777777 for these two Wang Mobile Devices. (*Id.*)\n\nSpecial Agent Cardenas did not participate in the search of Wang's apartment; she was only present at the search of Guo's apartment at the Sherry Netherland. (*See* Tr. 47:24-25, 50:12- 14). Agent Cardenas testified that, as is typical, CART examiners discussed potential passcodes with each other around their office when they encountered locked devices from a particular case. (*Id.* 50:15-24). When a colleague asked Agent Cardenas for advice on how to attempt to manually access a pair of locked devices, Agent Cardenas suggested she try 777777—and it worked. (*Id.* 50:25-51:14).\n\n### C. Brute Force\n\nTwo of the Wang 777777 Devices—1B70 (an iPhone 11) and 1B71 (an iPhone XR)—were of a make, model, and operating system that \"would be brute forceable.\" (Tr. 76:12-78:12). In other words, these Wang Mobile Devices had features that would have enabled use of FBI software \"that allows the guessing of passcodes against the device\" and \"will try all 1 million attempts until it finds the correct passcode.\" (*Id.* 76:16-20).\n\n# D. Biometrics\n\nOne of the Wang 777777 Devices—1B15, the iPhone that Wang identified in her bedroom (*see* DX-2 at 3501-12 (identified as \"Item 1\"); GX-5 at 9-10 (identified as \"1B15\" and received \"already powered on\")—had its biometrics function enabled. (Tr. 79:4-14). \"Biometrics is a way to unlock phones\" either by putting the powered-on device in front of its owner's face or pressings its owner's fingerprint to the device. (*Id.* 79:15-19). The Wang Premises Warrant authorized the seizure of her electronic devices and the compelled use of biometrics for any devices seized from her person. (*See* GX-26 at 5-6).\n\n## **APPLICABLE LAW**\n\n# **I. The** *Miranda/Edwards* **Right to Counsel**\n\n\"[W]hen an accused has invoked [her] right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, . . . [she] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to [her], unless the accused [herself] initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.\" *Edwards v. Arizona*, 451 U.S. 477, 484–85 (1981). The invocation of the right \"requires a *clear* assertion of the right to counsel,\" not an ambiguous statement such as, \"Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.\" *United States v. Medunjanin*, 752 F.3d 576, 586–87 (2d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up and emphasis in original).[3](#page-5-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The Government respectfully maintains its position that *Miranda*'s exclusionary rule is limited to *statements* obtained in violation of a defendant's rights to silence or counsel, and that no\n\n#### **II. Inevitable Discovery**\n\nThe doctrine of inevitable discovery caveats the exclusionary rule to permit the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence where the Government can \"establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.\" *Nix v. Williams*, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). A two-step process determines whether contested evidence avoids suppression on this ground. *In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties*, 830 F.3d 66, 103 (2d Cir. 2016). First, \"the court must evaluate the progress of the investigation at the time of the government misconduct to determine whether an active and ongoing investigation . . . was in progress.\" *Id.* Second, \"the court must, for each particular piece of evidence, specifically analyze and explain how, if at all, discovery of that piece of evidence would have been more likely than not inevitable absent the unlawful search.\" *Id.*\n\n#### **III. Evidentiary Standards at Suppression Hearings**\n\nThe Court is free to consider hearsay or any other nonprivileged evidence to decide a suppression motion. *See* Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) (court \"is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege,\" when deciding whether \"evidence is admissible\"); Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(1) (evidentiary rules other than privilege do not apply to \"[t]he determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under rule 104\"); *see also United States v. Raddatz*, 447 U.S. 667, 679 (1980) (\"At a suppression hearing, the court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.\"); *accord United States v. Yousef*, 327 F.3d 56, 145 (2d Cir. 2003).\n\nA defendant's affidavit should be disregarded if she chooses not to testify. See *United States v. Deleston*, No. 15 Cr. 113 (PKC), 2015 WL 4745252, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015); *United States v. James*, No. 10 Cr. 1293 (RPP), 2011 WL 6306721, at \\*7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011); *United States v. Al-Marri*, 230 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); United States v.\n\ncontrolling authority provides for suppression of *derivative evidence* as a remedy for purported violations of a defendant's *Edwards* right to counsel. (*See* Dkt. 232). A violation of *Miranda*'s prophylactic rules does not require \"suppression of the [nontestimonial] physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.\" *United States v. Patane*, 542 U.S. 630, 634 (2004) (plurality opinion); *United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia*, 708 F.3d 682, 687 (5th Cir. 2013) (when evidence seized is \"physical, nontestimonial evidence, an *Edwards* violation itself would not justify suppression\"). As three Justices explained in *Patane*, \"the *Miranda* rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause. The Self-Incrimination Clause, however, is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement. Accordingly, there is no justification for extending the *Miranda* rule to this context.\" 542 U.S. at 636. Nonetheless, the Court need not reach this issue because the testimony during the suppression hearing established, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that Wang had *not* invoked before she provided the 777777 passcode.\n\nPolanco, 37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"[T]he self-serving affidavit of the moving defendant is usually disregarded if [she] declines to testify at the hearing.\").\n\n# **DISCUSSION**\n\n### **I. Wang Provided Her 777777 Passcode Before Invoking Her Right to Counsel**\n\n\"If Wang provided the passwords before invoking her right to counsel . . . then there was no *Edwards* violation, and the issue is moot.\" March 22 Order at 22. Agent Baccari appeared before the Court to testify under oath that Wang did *not* invoke her right to counsel in the hallway. Instead, Wang provided the 777777 passcode after she was provided Miranda warnings but *before*  she invoked. (Tr. 45:2-13). Accordingly, there is no *Miranda/Edwards* violation and that should end the inquiry.\n\nWang's own affidavit is the only source substantiating her claim to have invoked her right to counsel immediately upon her arrest in the hallway. (*See* Dkt. 199-4). But, as his her right, Wang declined to testify and allow the Court to assess her credibility, and so her self-serving affidavit should be disregarded.[4](#page-7-0) *See United States v. Deleston*, No. 15 Cr. 113 (PKC), 2015 WL 4745252, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015); *United States v. James*, No. 10 Cr. 1293 (RPP), 2011 WL 6306721, at \\*7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011); *United States v. Al-Marri*, 230 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); *United States v. Polanco*, 37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"[T]he self-serving affidavit of the moving defendant is usually disregarded if [she] declines to testify at the hearing.\"). And if the Court *were* to credit Wang's written statement, it presents no factual dispute about the events that transpired once Agent Baccari and Wang were back in her bedroom where the disputed passcode statements were made. By Wang's own account, she invoked her right to counsel inside her bedroom only *after* providing \"the location of, and passwords for, electronic devices, in the apartment.\" (Dkt. 199-4).\n\nWeighing Agent Baccari's live testimony against Wang's uncorroborated litigation submission points to the conclusion that Wang did not invoke her right to counsel in the brief initial hallway encounter where Agent Baccari did not ask her any substantive questions she could have refused to answer. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Cherry*, 541 F. Supp. 3d 407, 422-23 (collecting cases for proposition that courts \"give greater weight\" to witness testimony \"even where an adversary has submitted an affidavit or declaration\"); *United States v. Thompson*, No. 10 Cr. 94 (JSR), 2010 WL 3069668, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2010) (denying motion to suppress where search agent's testimony contradicted non-testifying defendant's affidavit); *United States v. Juliano*, No. 99 Cr. 1197 (AGS), 2000 WL 1206745, at \\*3 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2000) (rejecting non-testifying defendant's \"conclusory\" sworn statement concerning sole material fact in face of agent's \"forthright and truthful\" testimony).\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Had Wang chosen to testify at the suppression hearing, the Government would have been prohibited from introducing any of her testimony at trial as evidence of her guilt. *See United States v. Warren*, 453 F.2d 738, 742-43 (2d Cir. 1973).\n\n#### **II. Alternatively, the FBI Would Inevitably Have Discovered the Contents of the Relevant Wang Devices**\n\nAssuming the Court declines to make a finding regarding the timing of Wang's invocation, or finds that Wang timely invoked, the record more than adequately supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the Wang 777777 Devices \"would have more likely than not\" been discovered absent Wang's disputed provision of that passcode. *See Nix*, 467 U.S. at 444 (preponderance standard for inevitable-discovery exception to suppression); *In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties*, 830 F.3d 66, 103 (2d Cir. 2016) (application of \"more likely than not\" standard to each piece of relevant evidence).\n\nFirst, the case agents created and disseminated the Passcode List drawn from a number of independent and overlapping sources beyond Wang's apartment. (*See* GX-2, GX-2A). That document identified 777777 at the top of its list of potential passcodes that CART examiners should try on devices seized across the entire investigation, and cited not Wang's provision of the code but its appearance in a notebook seized at Guo's residence in Mahwah, New Jersey. (*See*  GX-2A; USAO\\_00064116, USAO\\_00064120). This combination of numbers was ubiquitous and it was not random: Guo refers to himself as \"Brother Seven,\" (*see* Dkt. 2 ¶¶ 1, 6), and he identified the same passcode as belonging to his personal phone on the day of his arrest, when his assistant identified the same passcode for two additional devices. (Tr. 48:16-50:11). This record provides more than an adequate basis for the Court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the FBI would \"more likely than not\" have attempted 777777 on the Wang 777777 Devices in the event that Wang had not provided the passcode herself.\n\nSecond, certain of the Wang 777777 Devices would more likely than not have been accessed not only by application of the Passcode List but through additional technological means. DFE Isolda described his personal examination of three of the physical Wang 777777 Devices, and testified that two of them were susceptible to the FBI's \"brute force\" technology that bypasses passcode protections to gain entry to a locked device, and that a third had biometrics engaged that would have permitted agents to exercise their authority to unlock the device by holding it up to Wang's face or pressing her finger against it. (Tr. 75:3-79:14). Courts have consistently denied suppression motions on inevitable-discovery grounds where, as here, law enforcement would more likely than not have been able to access a device's contents through established technological methods that obviated the need for a passcode. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Eldarir*, No. 20 Cr. 243 (LDH), 2023 WL 4373551, at \\*9 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023) (publication forthcoming) (denying motion to suppress where law enforcement \"could have performed an extraction of Defendant's phone for the forensic review even without a passcode, though it may have taken additional time\"); *see also, e.g.*, *United States v. Will*, No. 15 Cr. 6, 2015 WL 3822599, \\*16 (N.D. W. Va. June 19, 2015) (denying suppression motion where \"the preponderance of the evidence supports that the Government's forensic analysis would uncover the same content even if Will did not provide his cell phone password\"); *United States v. Todd*, No. 16 Cr. 305, 2017 WL 1197849, \\*13 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2017) (\"as [the agent] testified, [the] FBI offices ... had the technological capabilities to bypass the swipe pattern and access the contents of [d]efendant's cell phone[;] [t]hus, regardless of whether officers violated [d]efendant's Miranda rights in obtaining [d]efendant's swipe pattern, the inevitable discovery doctrine prevents suppression of the evidence attained from the cell phone search\"), *report and recommendation adopted*, 2017 WL 1172113 (S.D. Ga. March 29, 2017); *United States v. Ashmore*, No. 16 Cr. 20016, Dkt. 36 at 12 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 7, 2016) (denying suppression of contents of device where Government \"would have been able to access the information on [the defendant's] computer and cell phone without the passwords provided by [the defendant] at his residence\").\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the Court should deny Wang's motion to suppress the contents of mobile devices seized from her apartment pursuant to a search warrant.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nB\n\nMicah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","body_zh":"[图片]\n\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）联邦检察官\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278（纽约州纽约市联邦广场26号雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼37楼，邮编10278）\n\n2024年4月12日\n\nVIA ECF AND EMAIL（通过 ECF 与电子邮件发送）\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨此致信，以回应法院在2024年4月9日就被告Yanping Wang（王雁平）要求排除其供述及合法扣押设备内容的动议举行听证会后，提出的提交听证后文书之要求。基于以下理由，法院应驳回王雁平的排除证据动议。\n\n初步陈述\n\n2023年3月15日，FBI（联邦调查局）特工在被告Yanping Wang（王雁平）公寓外的走廊内将其逮捕，并根据司法授权的令状搜查了其住所内的电子设备。王雁平指认了其手机并提供了密码。在就其排除证据动议提交的一份宣誓书中，王雁平承认，在进入公寓后，她在主张律师权之前就提供了密码。\n\n在听证会上，法院听取了特别特工Melissa Baccari（梅丽莎·巴卡里）的现场证词。她解释称，自己在走廊里向王雁平宣读了Miranda（米兰达）权利，但打算等到两人都进入公寓内一个更安静的空间后再开始讯问。特别特工巴卡里作证称，王雁平最终确实要求见律师，但这发生在讨论其手机之后——当特工巴卡里提及王雁平的共同被告Miles Guo（郭文贵）这一话题时，王雁平中断了讨论。因此，特工巴卡里的证词与王雁平的宣誓书在以下方面是一致的：王雁平在室内主张权利仅发生在指认其手机及提供密码之后。唯一的案件事实争议在于走廊里发生了什么，而在走廊情形中，一名经验丰富的执法特工的现场证词与被告自利且应予不予理会的宣誓书相矛盾。\n\n根据现有记录，法院至少应依据优势证据标准认定“王雁平在主张律师权之前提供了密码……该问题已无争议。”（Dkt. 251，3月22日命令第22页）。该记录还为驳回王雁平的动议提供了充分的其他依据。王雁平的共同被告——亦称“七哥”（Brother Seven）的郭文贵——及其个人助理分别向联邦调查局提供了相同的777777密码。在郭文贵位于Mahwah, New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦）的一处住所中查获的笔记本中，该密码被多次记录。因此，它被置于全案密码清单的首位，供数字取证分析人员在遇到锁定设备时尝试使用。此外，涉案争议设备中至少有某些设备容易被联邦调查局经常成功用于访问锁定设备的成熟工具所破解。换言之，法院至少可以依据优势证据标准认定，即使王雁平未提供密码，联邦调查局最终也会成功访问这些锁定设备。\n\n王雁平的动议应予驳回。\n\n记录情况\n\n以下事实是通过2024年4月9日排除证据听证会上提出的证词和证据确立的。\n\nI. 根据令状，王雁平被逮捕，其住所被搜查\n\n2023年3月15日清晨，联邦调查局特工抵达王雁平的公寓执行逮捕令与搜查令。（Tr. 6:4-5, 6:21-23; GX 26）。其中一份搜查令授权扣押“可能包含”导致王雁平随后被起诉的犯罪计划证据的“手机”及其他“电子设备”（GX 26 第3、5页）（即《王雁平住所搜查令》）。特工还被进一步授权使用“从王雁平身上起获的任何电子设备的生物识别传感器”来“解锁设备”。（同上，第6页）。\n\n在一组联邦调查局特工敲门并表明身份后，王雁平来到门前。（Tr. 5:21-6:11）。她被实施羁押并带入公寓外的走廊，在那里由特别特工梅丽莎·巴卡里和另一名女性特工接收。（同上，6:9-19, 7:3-4）。巴卡里特工是一名在联邦调查局服役五年的资深特工，她向王雁平告知了逮捕令与搜查令，并向王雁平宣读了米兰达权利。（同上，6:18-7:4）。\n\nII. 王雁平确认知晓其权利且未主张权利\n\n在巴卡里特工向王雁平宣读其权利后，王雁平表现得“好像她理解了”并且“顺从”。（Tr. 7:8-9）。王雁平在走廊里并未要求见律师。（同上，7:10-11）。她没有表示自己希望保持沉默。（同上，7:12-14）。她在走廊里根本没有发表任何实质性言论。（同上，15-16）。\n\n在特工们清理王雁平狭小的公寓期间，走廊里的互动十分短暂——仅有“几分钟”。（同上，7:5-7, 8:5-7）。在走廊里这段短暂的初步交流中，巴卡里特工并未要求王雁平作陈述。相反，她“想把她带到公寓里面的卧室里”。（同上，7:17-22）。巴卡里特工在走廊里拒绝向王雁平提出实质性问题是有意为之：这位经验丰富的特工“希望让[王雁平]感觉稍微舒服一些，而不是在外面走廊里问她问题……希望她愿意在里面与我交谈”。（同上，7:23-8:4）。王雁平表现得“顺从，且好像她理解了”。（同上，7:8-9）。\n\n在走廊里短暂停留后，特别特工巴卡里和另一名女性特工陪同王雁平走进她的卧室，途经“厨房柜台上的一排手机”。（Tr. 8:5-17）。\n\nIII. 王雁平提供其密码\n\n在他们进入王雁平的卧室后，特别特工巴卡里立即“注意到王女士床边床头柜上的一部手机”，并“询问她这是不是她的手机以及是不是她每天使用的手机”。（Tr. 9:5-11）。王雁平回答“是”，未说其他话，随后特别特工巴卡里向王雁平索要该手机的密码。（同上，9:7-13）。王雁平随即提供了密码——“777777”，未作任何额外评论。（同上，9:16-10:6）。当时，王雁平在向特别特工巴卡里指认其手机及密码之前，既没有要求见律师，也没有表示希望保持沉默。（同上，10:7-12）。\n\n谈话继续进行：特别特工巴卡里向王雁平询问了片刻前在前往王雁平卧室途中两人共同经过的那些手机，王雁平“说那些全都是她的手机”。（同上，10:13-23）。在未经特别特工巴卡里提示且未曾要求见律师的情况下，王雁平作了详细说明，并解释了她为何保留这么多手机。（参见同上，10:19-23（王雁平告诉巴卡里特工“她是CCP（中国共产党）的难民，她的手机经常被黑客入侵，这就是她有这么多手机的原因”））。\n\nIV. 王雁平仅在提供密码后才要求见律师\n\n巴卡里特工对王雁平主动解释为何拥有这么多手机“仅表示知悉”，随后就另一话题向王雁平提问：问她“当天早上是否知道郭文贵先生在哪里”。（Tr. 10:25-11:4）。在走廊里决定暂不向王雁平提出实质性问题、直至两名女性特工能让其在室内感到更舒适之后，巴卡里特工“认为我当时可以尝试对她进行讯问”，因为“她一直非常顺从，而且她正在说话”。（同上，11:15-24）。对于巴卡里特工关于王雁平是否知道郭文贵行踪的问题，王雁平“只是说了不，或者摇头表示不知道”，于是巴卡里特工“询问王女士是否愿意与我们交谈，向我作陈述”。（同上，11:15-21）。在回答了关于其手机、密码以及共同被告的至少四个其他问题之后——作为对该问题的回应，王雁平首次提及她希望请律师。（同上，11:19-12:4）。此时，巴卡里特工拒绝再提出任何实质性问题，“因为在有人主张权利后继续进行实质性谈话不是我们的办案程序”。（同上，12:5-19）。\n\n王雁平在听证会前的宣誓书——鉴于其决定不在听证会上作证而未获佐证，参见上文 7-8 及注3——陈述称王雁平在外面“走廊里”要求见律师，但一旦“回到公寓卧室”，王雁平在室内“表示[自己]想与律师交谈”之前，“提供……了公寓内电子设备的位置和密码”。（Dkt. 199-4）。\n\nV. 根据《王雁平住所搜查令》扣押王雁平的移动设备\n\n特工们完成了搜查执行工作，并最终根据《王雁平住所搜查令》扣押了各种物品和设备。（参见 DX 2（搜查302表格）1）。在相关部分，联邦调查局扣押了13部移动设备——12部 iPhone 和 1部 iPad（以下简称“王雁平移动设备”）。（参见 GX-S1）。其中八部设备使用相同的777777密码；其余五部要么使用不同的密码，要么根本没有密码。（参见同上）。\n\nVI. 同日，郭文贵及其助理亦提供777777密码，且在马瓦的一本笔记本中发现该密码\n\n当天上午，共同被告郭文贵在其位于Midtown Manhattan（曼哈顿中城）的顶层公寓被捕。（Tr. 47:13-25）。特别特工Jessica Cardenas（杰西卡·卡德纳斯）从郭文贵及其助理Jason Hu（胡杰森）被捕后遭拘留的房间内的一张桌子上收集了多部手机。（同上，48:16-24）。卡德纳斯特工向“门厅区域内的所有人”询问这些手机的密码，“第一个回答的是郭文贵”，他提供了密码777777。（同上，49:12-23）。卡德纳斯特工随后询问其中另一部手机的密码，郭文贵的助理胡杰森就另一部设备给出了相同的777777密码。（同上，49:24-50:8）。郭文贵及其助理总共为三部设备提供了777777密码。（同上，50:9-11）。\n\n在搜查郭文贵位于新泽西州马瓦的住所时查获的一本笔记本中，也多次列出了相同的777777密码。马瓦的搜查发生在王雁平、郭文贵和胡杰森为至少11部移动设备提供777777密码的同一天。（参见 Tr. 16:7-9（同日进行的马瓦搜查）；同上，50:9-11（三部带有777777密码的郭文贵和胡杰森设备）；GX-S1（八部带有777777密码的王雁平移动设备））。在马瓦扣押的一本笔记本中至少包含对该相同密码的两次提及，如下所示。（参见 GX-2A（办案特工通过电子邮件发送给数字取证分析人员的密码清单，其中指出777777密码来源于在马瓦扣押的笔记本1B196）；USAO_00064116、USAO_00064120（GX-2A 中引用的页面照片））。2\n\n[图片]\n\n[图片]\n\n1 辩护律师将 3501-05 作为辩方证据 2 提出，并被采纳。（参见 Tr. 33:22-34:2）。由于 3501-05 仅为跨度从 3501-05 至 3501-15 文件之首页，政府将整份文件称为 DX-2。\n\n2 USAO_00064116 和 USAO_00064120 未在听证会上作为证据引入，它们出自从Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）扣押的一本笔记本。它们于2023年5月12日或前后向被告方出示。\n\nVII. 联邦调查局编制密码清单，供分析“GTV”设备的数字取证分析人员共享\n\n负责处理和分析移动设备的联邦调查局部门称为Computer Analysis Response Team（计算机分析响应小组，简称“CART”）。（Tr. 46:19-47:7）。CART 分析人员有时需要密码才能访问移动设备。（同上，64:17-22）。当设备密码未知时，CART 通常会参考一份“密码清单”，即由“调查人员从其他数字证据项目中收集，或仅从搜查令中观察到的潜在[密码]序列，他们可以编制一份[密码]清单，以在未知密码的设备上进行测试”。（同上，64:23-65:12）。\n\nCART（电脑分析与应对小组）指的是一项名为“GTV”的单一案件，该案件涵盖了从至少四个地点扣押的、属于 Guo（郭文贵）、Hu（胡）和 Wang（王）等人的所有移动设备。（见 Tr. 47:21-23；50:15-18；55:6-8）。负责相关调查的 FBI（联邦调查局）案件经办特工制作了一份密码清单，并于 2023年5月3日 发送给负责 GTV 案件的 CART 检查员，邮件主题为“GTV – 最后的搜查令及潜在密码/PIN码”（以下简称《密码清单》）（GX-2（电子邮件）；GX-2A（《密码清单》））。\n\n777777 位于《密码清单》中标记为“Pins”的标签页顶部（见 GX-2A），且案件特工在随附的电子邮件中要求 CART 检查员在处理未知密码的设备时“请先尝试全 7”（见 GX-2）。如上所述，《密码清单》的 Pins 标签页指明，其从全案材料中整理出的潜在密码清单顶部的 777777 密码来源，是在对郭位于新泽西州马赫瓦（Mahwah）的住所进行搜查时查获的一个笔记本。（见 GX-2A，“Pins”标签页，首行）。在此之前，Miles Guo（郭文贵）——在当时有效的起诉书中被指认为“七哥”和“该计划的头目”等人（Dkt. 2 ¶¶ 1, 6）——及其助手也提供了相同的 777777 密码。（见 Tr. 48:16-24（特别特工 Cardenas））。\n\nVIII. 联邦调查局可能获取涉案王氏移动设备权限的重叠替代途径\n\nA. 涉案王氏移动设备\n\n王氏移动设备中有八部使用了 777777 密码（以下简称“王氏 777777 设备”）。其余五部王氏移动设备要么使用了其他密码，要么未启用密码（以下简称“其他王氏设备”）。因此，这五部王氏移动设备不属于王动议的对象。（见 GX-S1）。\n\nB. 密码清单以及 777777 在多个地点多名人员的设备中的广泛重复\n\n如上所述，CART 检查员至少在 2023年5月3日 就收到了《密码清单》。（见 GX-2；Tr. 65:23-66:16（数字取证检查员（“DFE”）Volchko 确认 GX-2 是她和其他人在 GTV 案件中收到的“潜在密码和 PIN 码清单”））。两周后，DFE Volchko 给案件特工发电子邮件指出，王氏移动设备中有两部需要手动输入密码，因为它们无法通过 FBI 用来绕过设备密码保护的“暴力破解”技术进行处理。（见 GX-4 第 2 页）。未参与搜查王住所的 DFE Volchko（见 DX-2 第 1 页（列出搜查参与人员名单））在主题为“GTV- iPhones 的 PIN 码”的电子邮件中询问案件特工，她是否应该对这两部王氏移动设备尝试 777777。（同上）。\n\n特别特工 Cardenas 未参与搜查王的住所；她仅出席了对郭位于雪梨荷兰酒店（Sherry Netherland）住所的搜查。（见 Tr. 47:24-25, 50:12-14）。特工 Cardenas 作证称，按照惯例，CART 检查员在遇到特定案件中锁定的设备时，会在办公室内相互讨论潜在密码。（同上，50:15-24）。当一名同事向特工 Cardenas 征求有关如何尝试手动访问两部锁定设备的建议时，特工 Cardenas 建议她尝试 777777——结果成功了。（同上，50:25-51:14）。\n\nC. 暴力破解\n\n在王氏 777777 设备中，有两部——1B70（一部 iPhone 11）和 1B71（一部 iPhone XR）——其品牌、型号和操作系统“属于可被暴力破解的类型”。（Tr. 76:12-78:12）。换言之，这些王氏移动设备具备允许使用 FBI 软件的功能，“该软件允许针对设备进行密码猜测”，并且“将尝试全部 100 万次，直到找到正确的密码”。（同上，76:16-20）。\n\nD. 生物识别\n\n王氏 777777 设备之一——1B15，即王在其卧室中指认的 iPhone（见 DX-2 第 3501-12 页（被指认为“物品 1”）；GX-5 第 9-10 页（被指认为“1B15”且接收时“已处于开机状态”））——启用了生物识别功能。（Tr. 79:4-14）。“生物识别是一种解锁手机的方法”，可以通过将开机状态下的设备置于其所有者的面部前方，或者将其所有者的指纹按压在设备上。（同上，79:15-19）。《王处所搜查令》授权扣押其电子设备，并授权对其随身扣押的任何设备强制使用生物识别。（见 GX-26 第 5-6 页）。\n\n适用法律\n\nI. Miranda/Edwards 律师协助权\n\n“当被告在羁押讯问期间主张其要求律师在场的权利时，……在为其指派律师之前，有关当局不得对其进行进一步讯问，除非被告本人主动发起与警方的进一步沟通、交流或对话。” Edwards v. Arizona，451 U.S. 477, 484–85 (1981)。该权利的主张“要求明确主张律师协助权”，而非模棱两可的声明，例如“也许我应该和律师谈谈”。United States v. Medunjanin，752 F.3d 576, 586–87 (2d Cir. 2014)（格式调整，强调为原文所加）。3\n\n3 政府谨重申其立场，即 Miranda 案确立的非法证据排除规则仅限于在侵犯被告保持沉默权或律师协助权的情况下获得的陈述，且没有任何控制性判例规定将排除派生证据作为对涉嫌侵犯被告 Edwards 律师协助权的补救措施。（见 Dkt. 232）。违反 Miranda 预防性规则并不要求“排除嫌疑人未获告知但自愿陈述的［非言词性］实物成果”。United States v. Patane，542 U.S. 630, 634 (2004)（多元意见）；United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia，708 F.3d 682, 687 (5th Cir. 2013)（当查扣的证据为“实物的、非言词性证据时，违反 Edwards 判例本身并不构成排除证据的理由”）。正如三位大法官在 Patane 案中所阐述的那样，“Miranda 规则是一种旨在防止违反《反自证其罪条款》的预防措施。然而，将自愿陈述的实物成果采纳为证据并不涉及《反自证其罪条款》。因此，没有理由将 Miranda 规则扩展到此种情形。” 542 U.S. at 636。尽管如此，法院无需涉及这一问题，因为证据压制听证会期间的证词已至少以优势证据确立，王在提供 777777 密码之前并未主张权利。\n\nII. 必然发现\n\n必然发现原则对非法证据排除规则作出了限制，允许在政府能够“以优势证据证明该信息最终或必然会通过合法手段被发现”的情况下，采纳非法获取的证据。Nix v. Williams，467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984)。通过两步法来判定争议证据是否基于该理由免于被排除。In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties，830 F.3d 66, 103 (2d Cir. 2016)。首先，“法院必须评估在政府实施不当行为时调查的进展情况，以确定当时是否正在进行积极且持续的调查……”。同上。其次，“法院必须针对每一项特定证据，具体分析并说明在没有非法搜查的情况下，发现该项证据是否更有可能是必然的”。同上。\n\nIII. 证据压制听证会的证据标准\n\n法院可自由考虑传闻证据或任何其他非特权证据来裁决证据排除动议。见 Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)（法院在判定“证据是否具有可采性”时，“不受证据规则的约束，但有关特权的规则除外”）；Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(1)（除特权规则外的证据规则不适用于“当争议需由法院依据规则 104 作出裁决时，对证据可采性的初步事实问题的判定”）；亦见 United States v. Raddatz，447 U.S. 667, 679 (1980)（“在证据压制听证会上，法院可以依据传闻证据及其他证据，即使该证据在审判中不可采纳”）；一致判例见 United States v. Yousef，327 F.3d 56, 145 (2d Cir. 2003)。\n\n如果被告选择不出庭作证，则其宣誓书应不予考虑。见 United States v. Deleston，No. 15 Cr. 113 (PKC), 2015 WL 4745252, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015)；United States v. James，No. 10 Cr. 1293 (RPP), 2011 WL 6306721, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011)；United States v. Al-Marri，230 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)；United States v. Polanco，37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“如果提出动议的被告拒绝在听证会上作证，其利己的宣誓书通常不予考虑。”）。\n\n讨论\n\nI. 王在主张其律师协助权之前提供了其 777777 密码\n\n“如果王在主张其律师协助权之前提供了密码……那么就不存在违反 Edwards 判例的情形，该问题即告平息。” 3月22日裁定 第 22 页。特工 Baccari 出庭宣誓作证称，王在走廊里并未主张其律师协助权。相反，王是在收到米兰达警告之后但在主张权利之前提供了 777777 密码。（Tr. 45:2-13）。因此，不存在违反 Miranda/Edwards 规则的情况，审查应当到此为止。\n\n王本人的宣誓书是证明其声称在走廊被捕后立即主张了律师协助权的唯一来源。（见 Dkt. 199-4）。但是，王行使其权利拒绝出庭作证并让法院评估其可信度，因此其利己的宣誓书应不予考虑。4 见 United States v. Deleston，No. 15 Cr. 113 (PKC), 2015 WL 4745252, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015)；United States v. James，No. 10 Cr. 1293 (RPP), 2011 WL 6306721, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011)；United States v. Al-Marri，230 F. Supp. 2d 535, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)；United States v. Polanco，37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“如果提出动议的被告拒绝在听证会上作证，其利己的宣誓书通常不予考虑。”）。而且，即使法院采信王的书面陈述，对于特工 Baccari 和王回到其卧室后所发生的事情，该陈述也并未提出任何事实争议，而有关密码的争议性陈述正是在卧室中作出的。根据王自己的说法，她是在提供了“公寓内电子设备的位置和密码”之后，才在其卧室内主张了律师协助权。（Dkt. 199-4）。\n\n将特工 Baccari 的现场证词与王缺乏佐证的诉讼文书进行权衡，得出的结论是：在特工 Baccari 没有向王提出任何她本可以拒绝回答的实质性问题的简短走廊初次接触中，王并未主张其律师协助权。例如参见 United States v. Cherry，541 F. Supp. 3d 407, 422-23（汇总案例以支持法院“给予证人证词更大分量，即使对方当事人已提交宣誓书或声明”的观点）；United States v. Thompson，No. 10 Cr. 94 (JSR), 2010 WL 3069668, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2010)（在搜查特工的证词与不出庭作证的被告的宣誓书相矛盾时，驳回排除证据的动议）；United States v. Juliano，No. 99 Cr. 1197 (AGS), 2000 WL 1206745, at *3 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2000)（面对特工“直率且真实”的证词，驳回不出庭作证的被告就唯一实质性事实所作的“结论性”宣誓陈述）。\n\n4 如果王选择在证据压制听证会上作证，政府将被禁止在审判中引入其任何证词作为其有罪的证据。见 United States v. Warren，453 F.2d 738, 742-43 (2d Cir. 1973)。\n\nII. 作为替代理由，联邦调查局（FBI，Federal Bureau of Investigation）必然会发现相关 Wang（王）涉案设备的内容\n\n即便法院不就 Wang 主张权利的时间点作出认定，或认定 Wang 已及时主张了权利，案卷记录也足以根据优势证据标准支持一项认定，即：若 Wang 没有提供该存在争议的密码，Wang 的每台 777777 设备也“更有可能”会被发现。参见 Nix 案，467 U.S. at 444（针对证据排除规则的必然发现例外的优势证据标准）；In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties 案，830 F.3d 66, 103 (2d Cir. 2016)（对每一项相关证据适用“更有可能”标准）。\n\n首先，办案特工根据王某公寓之外的大量独立且重叠的来源，制作并分发了《密码清单》（Passcode List）。（参见 GX-2, GX-2A）。该文件在其列出的潜在密码清单顶部标明了 777777，供 CART（计算机分析与响应小组，Computer Analysis Response Team）检验人员在整个侦查过程中扣押的所有设备上尝试，且该文件引用的依据并非 Wang 提供了该密码，而是在郭（Guo）位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah, New Jersey）的住所查扣的笔记本中出现了该密码。（参见 GX-2A；USAO_00064116, USAO_00064120）。这一数字组合无处不在且绝非随意：郭自称“七哥”（Brother Seven）（参见 Dkt. 2 ¶¶ 1, 6），且他在被捕当天确认该密码为其个人手机的密码，当时其助理亦确认另外两台设备也使用相同的密码。（庭审记录 Tr. 48:16-50:11）。这一记录为法院根据优势证据标准认定以下事实提供了充分的依据：即使 Wang 本人未提供该密码，FBI“更有可能”也会在 Wang 的 777777 设备上尝试 777777 这一密码。\n\n其次，Wang 的某些 777777 设备不仅更有可能通过使用《密码清单》被访问，而且更有可能通过其他技术手段被访问。DFE（数字取证审查员，Digital Forensic Examiner）Isolda 描述了他对 Wang 的三台实体 777777 设备进行的个人勘验，并作证称其中两台设备易受 FBI“暴力破解”（brute force）技术的破解，该技术可绕过密码保护进入已锁定的设备；第三台设备启用了生物识别功能，特工本可依法行使权力，通过将设备对准 Wang 的面部或按压其手指来解锁该设备。（庭审记录 Tr. 75:3-79:14）。法院一贯以必然发现为由驳回排除证据动议，在此类案件中（如同本案），执法机关更有可能通过既定的、无需密码的技术方法访问设备内容。参见例如 United States v. Eldarir 案，No. 20 Cr. 243 (LDH), 2023 WL 4373551, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023)（即将出版）（在执法机关“即使没有密码也可以对被告人的手机进行提取以供法医审查，尽管这可能需要额外的时间”的情况下，驳回排除证据动议）；另参见例如 United States v. Will 案，No. 15 Cr. 6, 2015 WL 3822599, *16 (N.D. W. Va. June 19, 2015)（在“优势证据支持即使 Will 没有提供其手机密码，政府的法医分析也会发现相同内容”的情况下，驳回排除动议）；United States v. Todd 案，No. 16 Cr. 305, 2017 WL 1197849, *13 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2017)（“正如[特工]作证所言，FBI 办事处……具备绕过滑动图案并访问被告人手机内容的技术能力；因此，无论执法人员在获取被告人滑动图案时是否侵犯了被告人的米兰达权利（Miranda rights），必然发现原则均可阻止排除搜查手机所获得的证据”），后被采纳报告与建议，2017 WL 1172113 (S.D. Ga. March 29, 2017)；United States v. Ashmore 案，No. 16 Cr. 20016, Dkt. 36 at 12 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 7, 2016)（在政府“即使没有[被告人]在其住所提供的密码，也能够访问[被告人]电脑和手机上的信息”的情况下，驳回对设备内容的排除）。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，法院应驳回 Wang 提出的排除依据搜查令从其公寓扣押的移动设备内容的动议。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\n联邦检察官\n\n签署人：\n\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Miles Guo","GTV","Yanping Wang","Torres","CIPA","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":199,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":232,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":251,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4491,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-12 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-12","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:38:07"}