{"id":"court_sdny_285_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":285,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"Document 285 4/16/24 Page","summary_zh":"抗辩状（压制证据动议） —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #285（2024年4月16日）。被告人 Yanping Wang 的辩护律师主张政府违反《Edwards 规则》，在被告人宣示要求律师后仍继续询问关于手机密码的信息；并异议政府在庭后提交本应在听证会上质证的新证据；要求法院批准压制证据的动议。","summary_en":"Defense motion brief on evidence suppression — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo, Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #285 (April 16, 2024). Counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang argues the Government violated Edwards by continuing to question the defendant about phone passcodes after she invoked her right to counsel, and objects to the Government's introduction of new evidence post-hearing; urges the Court to grant the motion to suppress.","body_en":"Document 285\n\n4/16/24 Page\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\nTEL +1 212.408.2500 FAX +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\nAUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON\n\nNEW YORK PALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON\n\nApril 16, 2024\n\nBrendan F. Quigley TEL: 2124082520 FAX: 2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n# Re: *United States v. Yanping Wang*, 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Yanping Wang in this matter. We write in further support of Ms. Wang's motion to suppress evidence obtained seized from her apartment on March 15, 2023 and in response to the government's April 12, 2024 submission (Gov't 4/12/24 Ltr.).\n\n# **I. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempt to Introduce New Evidence**\n\nFirst, the Court should reject the government's attempts to inject new evidence, not presented at the hearing, in the 4/12/24 filing. Specifically, the government tries to introduce images from a notebook seized in Mahwah, New Jersey on March 15, 2023. *See* Gov't 4/12/24 Ltr. at 4. There was no testimony at the suppression hearing regarding this notebook or the Mahwah search more generally (beyond the fact that it occurred). The Court should thus exclude this document from its consideration of Ms. Wang's motion. *Cf.* Order, 3/22/24, ECF No. 251 at 22 (ordering the suppression hearing, in part, because the government's unsworn assertions in its opposition brief were insufficient to establish inevitable discovery).\n\nSecond, the government seeks to introduce *ten* additional pieces of 3500 material that were not introduced into evidence at the hearing. In footnote 1, the government attempts to elide what it is actually doing (in part by blaming defense counsel). It claims that \"[d]efense counsel offered 3501-5 as Defense Exhibit 2 and it was admitted,\" and \"[b]ecause 3501-5 is only the first page of a document from 3501-05 to 3501-15, the Government refers to the entire document as DX-2.\" Gov't 4/12/23 Ltr. at 4 n.1.\n\nIn other words, what the government is really saying is that \"3501-06 to 3501-15 were not introduced into evidence at the hearing, but because [supposedly] they are part of the same document as 3501-05, we can rely on that now.\" Even setting aside the government being less than straightforward in explaining its actions, there is no basis for it to try to sneak 3501-06 through 15 into evidence now. For one, the government—not the defense—in fact chose to mark 3501-05 through 15 as *separate* **documents**. *See, e.g.*, 3501-05 (\"Page 1 of 1\"). It did not seek to introduce\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - April 16, 2024\n\n-2-\n\nApril 16, 2024\n\n3501-06 through 3501-15 on re-direct of Agent Baccari and through any other witness. And the reason it originally marked these documents separately is **because that is what they are**. 3501- 005 is a typed FBI 302. 3501-006 is a cover sheet to photos. 3501-007 is another cover sheet to photos. 3501-008 is a handwritten form. 3501-009 is a photo log. 3501-10 is a sign-in sheet. 3511- 01 is a handwritten sketch. 3501-12 is a handwritten evidence collection log. 3501-13 is a handwritten search warrant execution log. 3501-14 is an \"administrative worksheet.\" 3501-15 is the search warrant itself.\n\nNo reasonable person would seriously argue, as the government has here, that these are all part of the same document. *Cf.* Gov't 4/16/24 Ltr. at 4 n.1. (\"Because 3501-05 is only the first page of a document that spans from 3501-05 to 3501-15 . . .\").\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nAccordingly, the Court should reject the government's attempts to introduce new evidence through its post-hearing papers.\n\n# **II. The Evidence from the Hearing is Consistent with Ms. Wang's Affidavit and with Post-Invocation Questioning Regarding the Phones' Passcodes**\n\nThe Court should also find that Ms. Wang invoked her right to counsel before she was questioned about the phones' passwords.\n\nIn its post-hearing brief, the government's argument largely boils down to \"the Court should discredit Ms. Wang’s” affidavit because the courts “disregard”<sup>1</sup> affidavits. That is not the law. As the government itself points out elsewhere, the Court may \"consider hearsay . . . to decide a suppression motion,”<sup>2</sup> and the Second Circuit has affirmed the grant of a suppression motion even though the defendant did not testify*. United States v. Isiofia*, 370 F.3d 226, 233 (2d Cir. 2004) (affirming suppression where defendant's affidavit \"provides a different version of the relevant events and contains evidence . . . that the District Court was free to, and apparently did, credit\").\n\nThat is particularly appropriate here for multiple reasons.\n\nFirst, the documentary evidence introduced at the hearing is consistent with Ms. Wang's affidavit that she invoked shortly after the agents initially read her rights to her in the hallway. Most notably, the agent's own notes from that day reflect, at the top of the page, \"rights read invoked.\"\n\n<sup>1</sup>Gov't 4/12/24 Ltr. at 7.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 3 - April 16, 2024\n\nApril 16, 2024\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_6.jpeg)\n\nThe notes also reflect that substantive questioning concerning the phones took place below \"invoked,\" indicating they occurred after the invocation. *See id.* Similarly, in DX-3, the agent's typed FBI 302 report, the discussion of the phones' passcodes comes below the discussion of Ms. Wang's invocation, similarly indicating the agents asked Ms. Wang for her phone passcodes after she invoked. *See* DX-3.\n\n*Second*, as discussed more fully in our April 12 submission, other aspects of the agent's testimony and the documented circumstances are consistent with post-invocation questioning regarding the phones and with a lack of regard for (or at best ignorance of) the rule of *Edwards*. These aspects include:\n\n- the fact that Agent Baccari was, respectfully, at best, unsure of whether an assertion of the right to counsel precluded her from asking questions about cellphones. She acknowledged, for example, telling the AUSAs that she may have asked Ms. Wang questions about her cellphone even after Ms. Wang had invoked her right to counsel. (Tr. 32:7-33:11 (\"Yes. I guess I said that.\")).\n- the fact that Agent Baccari's testimony notwithstanding, she was more equivocal before the hearing, indicating when meeting with the AUSAs she did not \"think\" she would have asked Ms. Wang to make a statement in the hallway. (Tr. 27:8-9).\n- the fact that, despite Agent Baccari's testimony that, once Ms. Wang invoked, \"the next step\" was to prepare Ms. Wang for transport to 26 Federal Plaza, (Tr. 44:6-7), the agents kept Ms. Wang on the scene for at least another 45 minutes. (Tr. 34:21- 25; 44:8-9).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 4 - April 16, 2024\n\n-.4-\n\nApril 16, 2024\n\n the fact that, during these 45 minutes, the agents continued to question Ms. Wang (again consistent with her affidavit and in violation of *Edwards*).<sup>3</sup>\n\n*Finally*, the documentary evidence also shows that the search of the apartment did not actually *begin* until sometime *after* 6:18 a.m., i.e., indisputably after Ms. Wang invoked.\n\n![](_page_3_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\nIn short, the evidence showed that Ms. Wang—consistent with her affidavit—invoked her right to counsel shortly after she was advised of her rights and before any search of the apartment actually began, and the circumstances of the search (including the fact that the agents kept Ms. Wang on the scene for approximately 45 minutes during which they clearly asked her more questions) are also consistent with post-invocation questioning in violation of *Edwards*.\n\n# **III. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Does Not Apply.**\n\nFurther, the inevitable-discovery doctrine does not apply to the phones accessed by Ms. Wang's \"7777777\" passcode.\n\n**Brute Force.** As to the FBI's \"Brute Force\" tool, the hearing evidence showed that Brute Force capabilities are not available for any iPhone that in version 12 or later (Tr. 72:14-16), meaning it was not available for all but two of the iPhones that the agents unlocked using Ms. Wang's password, *see* GX S-1.\n\nIn other words, for all but two of the cellphones at issue (1B70 and 1B71), there were not \"established technological methods that obviated the need for a passcode.\" *Cf.* Gov't 4/12/24 Ltr. at 9.<sup>4</sup>\n\n<sup>3</sup> Tr. 36:4-5 (“Q. Would they come into the bedroom to ask Ms. Wang questions? A. I recall an instance.\")\n\n<sup>4</sup> Judge DeArcy Hall’s decision in *United States v. Eldarir* does not help the government here. For one thing, that case involved the independent source doctrine, not inevitable discovery. *United States v. Eldarir*, No. 20-CR-243 (LDH), 2023 WL 4373551, at \\*7 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023). Further, Judge DeArcy Hall held the independent source doctrine applied because \"subsequent to the manual search and image of Defendant's phone, the Government sought and obtained a warrant to search the device. Agent Gamza's affidavit in support of the warrant set forth the following facts in support of a finding of probable cause, which are not tied to any evidence found on Defendant's\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 5 - April 16, 2024\n\n $-5-$\nApril 16, 2024\n\nAnd, for those two iPhones, 1B70 and 1B71, Mr. Isolda testified he determined that those devices could be \"Brute Forced\" the morning of the hearing. (Tr. 80:3-17). Once again, as in *Lauria*, \"but for the defense's exposure of\" the potentially unlawful conduct, here the *Edwards* violation concerning the passwords, \"the government would have had no reason—and, therefore, would have been unlikely—to pursue alternative lawful means,”<sup>5</sup> of searching 1B70 and 1B71, so the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply.\n\n**\"777777\" password.** Nor can the government show the \"777777\" password obtained from Mr. Kwok at the Sherry Netherland would have inevitably unlocked the phones at issue.\n\n*First*, as we noted in our April 12 brief, the deliberate questioning of Mr. Kwok to obtain his passwords was itself illegal under the Sixth Amendment and thus cannot provide a basis for inevitable discovery.\n\n*Second*, the government cannot show that its decision to use the \"777777\" password on Ms. Wang's phones was untainted by the *Edwards* violations at Ms. Wang's apartment. *See* Tr 71:19-25 (testimony that CART examiner had \"no way of knowing\" whether information from search of Ms. Wang's apartment impacted case agent's decision to authorize \"777777\" password on Wang devices); *In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props.*, 830 F.3d 66, 105 (2d Cir. 2016) (rejecting inevitable discovery doctrine because the court could not say that the lawful means the government used were \"not tainted by the challenged search so as to admit a finding of inevitable discovery\").\n\n*Third*, suggestion that agents would have eventually figured out the \"777777\" password to the non-Brute Forceable devices is belied by Ms. Volchko's own contemporaneous warning to the agents that \"it's important to note that unsuccessful PIN attempts *always* run the risk of permanently disabling or wiping the device.\" GX 4 (emphasis added); *cf. In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props.*, 934 F.3d 147, 164 (2d Cir. 2019) (\"[P]roof of inevitable discovery involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment . . . .\").\n\n*Finally*, the government cannot show, that at the time of the of the *Edwards* violations at Ms. Wang's apartment, the agents knew they would have obtained Mr. Kwok's passwords. *In re*\n\nphone prior to obtaining the warrant.\" *Id.* Here, by contrast, the government cannot meet its burden to show that the agents' use of the \"777777\" password on Ms. Wang's phones was independent of the fact that Ms. Wang had provided it. *See* Tr 71:19-25 (testimony that CART examiner had \"no way of knowing\" whether information from search of Ms. Wang's apartment impacted case agent's decision to authorize \"777777\" password on Wang devices).\n\n<sup>5</sup> *United States v. Lauria*, 70 F.4th 106, 124 (2d Cir. 2023).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 6 - April 16, 2024\n\n-6-\n\nApril 16, 2024\n\n*650 Fifth Ave. and Related Props.*, 934 F.3d at 164 (instructing district courts to \"view[] affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search . . .” (citation and quotation omitted)).\n\n**Biometrics**. Nor, for the same reasons stated in our April 12 filing, can the government rely on biometrics as a means of inevitable discovery. While Mr. Isolda testified that one of the devices had biometric capabilities, his examinations occurred the day before and the morning of the hearing.<sup>6</sup> Again, as in *Lauria*, the record shows that “but for” the suppression motion, “the government would have had no reason—and, therefore, would have been unlikely—to pursue alternative lawful means,”<sup>7</sup> here the use of the devices’ biometric capabilities. As such, biometric capabilities do not provide a basis for inevitable discovery.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nAccordingly, the Court should grant the motion to suppress.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Brendan F. Quigley* Brendan F. Quigley\n\n<sup>6</sup> (Tr. 80:6-23).\n\n<sup>7</sup> 70 F.4th at 124.","body_zh":"文件 285\n\n2024年4月16日 第 页\n\n[图片]\n\n洛克菲勒广场30号，纽约州纽约市 10112-4498\n（30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498）\n\n电话：+1 212.408.2500 传真：+1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\n奥斯汀 布鲁塞尔 达拉斯 迪拜 休斯敦 伦敦\n（AUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON）\n\n纽约 帕洛阿尔托 利雅得 旧金山 新加坡 华盛顿\n（NEW YORK PALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON）\n\n2024年4月16日\n\n布伦丹·F·奎格利（Brendan F. Quigley） 电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\n尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯（Analisa Torres）\n联邦地区法官\n纽约南区联邦地区法院（Southern District of New York）\n纽约州纽约市珍珠街500号 10007\n（500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007）\n\n事由：美国诉王雁平（United States v. Yanping Wang），案号 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们在此案中代表王雁平（Yanping Wang）。我们致函以进一步支持王女士关于排除2023年3月15日从其公寓查扣获取的证据的动议，并回应政府于2024年4月12日提交的文件（政府2024年4月12日信函）。\n\n一、 法院应当驳回政府引入新证据的企图\n\n首先，法院应当驳回政府在2024年4月12日提交的文件中试图引入听证会上未出示的新证据的做法。具体而言，政府试图引入2023年3月15日在新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah, New Jersey）查扣的一个笔记本的照片。参见政府2024年4月12日信函第4页。在证据排除听证会上，没有任何关于该笔记本或关于马瓦搜查的证词（除提及发生过搜查这一事实外）。因此，法院在审议王女士的动议时应将该文件排除在考虑范围之外。对照：裁定，2024年3月22日，ECF编号 251第22页（之所以命令举行证据排除听证会，部分原因在于政府在其反对意见摘要中的未宣誓陈述不足以确立必然发现原则）。\n\n其次，政府试图引入十份在听证会上并未作为证据引入的额外3500材料。在脚注1中，政府试图掩盖其真实行为（部分是通过指责辩方律师）。它声称“辩方律师将3501-5作为辩方证据2提出并被采纳”，并且“因为3501-5仅是从3501-05至3501-15的一份文件的第一页，政府将整份文件称为DX-2。”政府2024年4月12日信函第4页注1。\n\n换言之，政府的真正意思是“3501-06至3501-15在听证会上并未作为证据引入，但由于［据推测］它们与3501-05属于同一份文件的一部分，我们现在可以依赖它。”即使姑且不论政府在解释其行为时不够坦率，它现在试图将3501-06至15偷换进证据中也是毫无依据的。一方面，事实上是政府（而非辩方）选择将3501-05至15标记为单独的文件。例如参见3501-05（“第1页，共1页”）。在对巴卡里探员（Agent Baccari）进行再询问时或通过任何其他证人，政府并未试图引入\n\n尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官 - 2 - 2024年4月16日\n\n-2-\n\n2024年4月16日\n\n3501-06至3501-15。而它最初将这些文件分别标记的原因正是因为它们本来就是独立的文件。3501-005是一份打印的FBI 302报告。3501-006是一份照片封面纸。3501-007是另一份照片封面纸。3501-008是一份手写表格。3501-009是一份照片日志。3501-10是一份签到表。3511-01是一份手绘草图。3501-12是一份手写证据收集日志。3501-13是一份手写搜查令执行日志。3501-14是一份“行政工作单”。3501-15是搜查令本身。\n\n任何理性的人都不会像政府在此所做的那样，认真主张这些全都是同一份文件的一部分。对照：政府2024年4月16日信函第4页注1（“因为3501-05仅是跨度从3501-05至3501-15的文件第一页……”）。\n\n***\n\n因此，法院应当驳回政府试图通过其听证会后提交的文件引入新证据的企图。\n\n二、 听证会上的证据与王女士的宣誓书相吻合，并与主张权利后就手机密码进行讯问的情况相吻合\n\n法院还应认定，王女士在就手机密码接受讯问之前就已主张了其获得律师协助的权利。\n\n在听证会后的摘要中，政府的论据主要归结为“法院应不予采信王女士的”宣誓书，因为法院对宣誓书“不予考虑”1。这并非法律规定。正如政府自己在其他地方所指出的，法院可以“考虑传闻证据……以对排除证据动议作出裁决”2，并且第二巡回法院曾维持准许排除证据动议的裁定，即便被告并未出庭作证。美国诉伊西奥菲亚案（United States v. Isiofia），370 F.3d 226, 233 (2d Cir. 2004)（维持排除证据裁定，其中被告的宣誓书“提供了有关事件的不同版本，并包含……联邦地区法院有权予以采信且显然已予以采信的证据”）。\n\n出于多项理由，这在目前情况下尤为适用。\n\n首先，听证会上引入的书证与王女士关于她在探员最初于走廊向其宣读书面权利后不久即主张权利的宣誓书是一致的。最值得注意的是，探员当天的亲笔笔记在页面顶部记录了“已宣读权利 主张了权利”。\n\n1 政府2024年4月12日信函第7页。\n\n尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官 - 3 - 2024年4月16日\n\n2024年4月16日\n\n[图片]\n\n[图表]\n\n该笔记还反映出，关于手机的实体讯问发生在“主张权利”字样下方，表明讯问发生在主张权利之后。参见同上。同样，在DX-3（探员打印的FBI 302报告）中，对手机密码的讨论位于对王女士主张权利的讨论之后，同样表明探员是在王女士主张权利之后向其索要手机密码的。参见DX-3。\n\n第二，正如我们在4月12日提交的文件中更详尽论述的那样，探员证词的其他方面以及记录在案的情况与主张权利后就手机进行讯问相吻合，并且与对爱德华兹案（Edwards）规则的不顾（或充其量是无知）相吻合。这些方面包括：\n\n- 恕直言，巴卡里探员充其量根本无法确定主张律师权是否会阻止她提出关于手机的问题这一事实。例如，她承认曾告诉联邦助理检察官（AUSA），即使在王女士主张了律师协助权之后，她可能仍就手机向王女士提问。（庭审笔录第32页第7行至第33页第11行（“是的。我想我是这么说的。”））。\n- 尽管巴卡里探员出庭作证，但她在听证会之前态度更为模棱两可，在与联邦助理检察官会面时表示她不“认为”自己曾在走廊要求王女士作出陈述这一事实。（庭审笔录第27页第8-9行）。\n- 尽管巴卡里探员作证称，一旦王女士主张了权利，“下一步”就是准备将王女士押送至联邦广场26号（26 Federal Plaza）（庭审笔录第44页第6-7行），但探员们仍将王女士留在现场至少达45分钟之久这一事实。（庭审笔录第34页第21-25行；第44页第8-9行）。\n\n尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官 - 4 - 2024年4月16日\n\n-4-\n\n2024年4月16日\n\n 在这45分钟期间，探员们继续讯问王女士这一事实（再次与她的宣誓书相吻合，且违反了爱德华兹案规则）。3\n\n最后，书证还表明，对公寓的搜查实际上是在清晨6点18分之后的某个时间才真正开始的，即无可争议地发生在王女士主张权利之后。\n\n[图表]\n\n简而言之，证据表明，王女士——与其宣誓书相符——在获知其权利后不久、在对公寓的任何搜查实际开始之前，就已主张了其获得律师协助的权利，且搜查的情形（包括探员将王女士留在现场约45分钟，在此期间他们显然对她进行了更多讯问的事实）也与违反爱德华兹案规则在主张权利后进行讯问的情况相吻合。\n\n三、 必然发现原则不适用。\n\n此外，必然发现原则不适用于通过王女士的“777777”密码访问的手机。\n\n穷举破解。关于联邦调查局（FBI）的“穷举破解（Brute Force）”工具，听证会证据显示，穷举破解功能不适用于版本为12或更高版本的任何iPhone（庭审笔录第72页第14-16行），这意味着除了探员使用王女士密码解锁的两部iPhone之外，该功能对所有其他iPhone均不可用，参见政府证物 S-1（GX S-1）。\n\n换言之，对于涉案除两部之外的所有手机（1B70和1B71），并不存在“免去对密码需求之既定技术手段”。对照：政府2024年4月12日信函第9页。4\n\n3 庭审笔录第36页第4-5行（“问：他们是否会进卧室向王女士提问？ 答：我记得有一次。”）\n\n4 迪亚西·霍尔（DeArcy Hall）法官在合众国诉埃尔达里尔案（United States v. Eldarir）中的裁定在此对政府无济于事。首先，该案涉及的是独立来源原则，而非必然发现原则。合众国诉埃尔达里尔案，案号 20-CR-243 (LDH), 2023 WL 4373551, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023)。此外，迪亚西·霍尔法官判定独立来源原则适用，是因为“在对被告的手机进行人工搜查和镜像复制之后，政府申请并获得了搜查该设备的搜查令。甘扎探员（Agent Gamza）支持搜查令的宣誓书阐述了以下支持合理根据认定的事实，这些事实与在被告手机上发现的任何证据均无关\n\n尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官 - 5 - 2024年4月16日\n\n-5-\n2024年4月16日\n\n并且，对于1B70和1B71这两部iPhone，伊索尔达先生（Mr. Isolda）作证称，他在听证会当天早晨才确定这些设备可以被“穷举破解”。（庭审笔录第80页第3-17行）。再一次，如同劳里亚案（Lauria）一样，“若非辩方揭露了”潜在的非法行为（在此即涉及密码的违反爱德华兹案规则之行为），“政府本没有理由——因此本来也不大可能——去寻求搜查1B70和1B71的替代性合法手段”5，因此必然发现原则不适用。\n\n“777777”密码。政府同样无法证明，在雪梨荷兰酒店（Sherry Netherland）从郭先生（Mr. Kwok）处获取的“777777”密码必然能解锁涉案手机。\n\n第一，正如我们在4月12日摘要中所述，故意对郭先生进行讯问以获取其密码本身就违反了宪法第六修正案因而构成非法，因此不能作为必然发现的基础。\n\n第二，政府无法证明其在王女士的手机上使用“777777”密码的决定未受到王女士公寓内违反爱德华兹案规则行为的污染。参见庭审笔录第71页第19-25行（证词表明，计算机分析与响应小组（CART）审查员“无从知晓”搜查王女士公寓所获信息是否影响了案件承办探员授权在王女士设备上使用“777777”密码的决定）；第五大道650号及相关财产案（In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props.），830 F.3d 66, 105 (2d Cir. 2016)（驳回必然发现原则，因为法院无法认定政府所采用的合法手段“未受到受质疑搜查的污染，从而足以作出必然发现的认定”）。\n\n第三，关于探员最终能破解出无法穷举破解设备的“777777”密码之主张，与沃尔奇科女士（Ms. Volchko）当时向探员发出的警告相悖，即“必须指出的是，不成功的PIN尝试始终面临导致设备永久停用或清除数据的风险。”政府证据4（GX 4）（强调为后加）；对照：第五大道650号及相关财产案，934 F.3d 147, 164 (2d Cir. 2019)（“必然发现的证明不包含任何推测成分，而是侧重于易于核实或反驳的已证实历史事实……”）。\n\n最后，政府无法证明，在王女士公寓发生违反爱德华兹案规则的行为之时，探员们就已知晓他们会获取郭先生的密码。参见第五大道650号及相关财产案（In re\n\n……在取得搜查令之前查看了该手机。”同上案。相比之下，在本案中，政府无法履行其举证责任，证明执法人员在Ms. Wang（王女士）的手机上使用“777777”密码与王女士提供该密码这一事实无关。参见 Tr 71:19-25（证词表明，CART[计算机分析响应小组]审查员“无法得知”搜查王女士公寓所获得的信息是否影响了案件主办执法人员授权在王女士设备上使用“777777”密码的决定）。\n\n5 United States v. Lauria（美国诉劳里亚案）, 70 F.4th 106, 124 (2d Cir. 2023).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下） - 6 - 2024年4月16日\n\n-6-\n\n2024年4月16日\n\n650 Fifth Ave. and Related Props.（第五大道650号及相关财产案）, 934 F.3d at 164（指示地区法院“审视在非法搜查发生前一瞬间所存在的实际情况……”[引文及引号省略]）。\n\n生物识别技术。同样，基于我们在4月12日提交的文件中所述的相同理由，政府亦不能依赖生物识别技术作为必然发现的途径。尽管Mr. Isolda（伊索尔达先生）作证称其中一台设备具备生物识别功能，但他的检查是在听证会的前一天和当天上午进行的。6 同样，正如在Lauria（劳里亚案）中所体现的，记录表明，“若非”提出排除证据动议，“政府将没有任何理由——因此也不太可能——去寻求其他合法的途径”，7 在本案中即使用设备的生物识别功能。因此，生物识别功能不能作为必然发现的依据。\n\n***\n\n据此，法院应批准该排除证据动议。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Brendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利）\nBrendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利）\n\n6 (Tr. 80:6-23).\n\n7 70 F.4th at 124.","key_entities":["Torres","Je","Analisa Torres","Kwok","Yanping Wang"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":251,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2104,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:29:04"}