{"id":"court_sdny_299_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":299,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-04-22","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK","summary_zh":"法庭命令 —— 美国诉Yanping Wang案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #299（2024年4月22日立案）。Torres法官驳回Wang关于压制手机密码和通过该密码检索证据的动议。法院基于FBI特工Baccari的证人证词和当代文件认定，Wang在被逮捕时提出律师权利援引之前已经提供了手机密码，因此不存在Miranda/Edwards违反。","summary_en":"Court Order — United States v. Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #299 (filed April 22, 2024). Judge Analisa Torres denies Wang's motion to suppress her disclosed cell phone passcode and evidence retrieved using that passcode. Based on testimony by FBI Special Agent Melissa Baccari and contemporaneous documents, the Court finds Wang provided her phone passcode before invoking her right to counsel during arrest, thus no Miranda/Edwards violation occurred.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n## SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\n\n| <strong>Labels</strong> | <strong>Values</strong>       |\n|-------------------------|-------------------------------|\n| DOC #:                  | <strong><em>_</em></strong> _ |\n| DATE FILED:             | 04/22/2024                    |\n\n-against-\n\nYANPING WANG,\n\n23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDefendant.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nDefendant, Yanping Wang, is charged with eleven counts of wire fraud, securities fraud, and unlawful monetary transactions, as well as conspiring to commit racketeering offenses, wire and bank fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud. S2, ECF No. 215. Wang moves to suppress a cell phone passcode she disclosed during her arrest on March 15, 2023, as well as the evidence later retrieved from her devices using the disclosed passcode. ECF No. 196; see ECF No. 197 at 11-13.\n\nOn April 9, 2024, the Court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual issues, including whether Wang invoked her right to counsel prior to providing the passcode and whether the Government would have inevitably accessed the cell phones. Dkt. Entry 4/9/24; see Order at 20, ECF No. 251. Melissa Baccari and Jessica Cardenas, special agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”), testified for the Government, along with Jessica Volchko and Christian Isolda, both digital forensics examiners with the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team. Tr. at 3:13–4:4, 46:1–16, 53:9–54:13, 75:7–76:5. Wang did not call any witnesses. The Court credits the testimony of all of the witnesses. For the reasons stated below, Wang’s motion is **DENIED**.\n\nOn March 15, 2023, FBI officers arrested Wang at her Manhattan apartment. Tr. at 4:23–\n\n5:5. About eleven FBI agents, including Baccari, were members of the arrest team. *Id.* at 5:6– 15. At around 6:00 a.m., the agents knocked on Wang's door and asked her to come to the door. *Id.* at 5:21–6:4, 20:1–16. Wang did not do so immediately, and the team \"called four [phone] numbers\" to try to reach her. *Id.* at 20:20–22, 21:16–24. When Wang came to the door, she was brought out into the hallway and handcuffed. *Id.* at 6:11–16, 22:8–17. Wang was then \"passed\" to Baccari, who was standing behind the agents who had handcuffed Wang. *Id.* at 6:3–4, 17–19. Baccari and another female agent interacted with Wang while the other team members entered the apartment to \"clear the residence.\" *Id.* at 6:18–7:7, 25:23–25 (\"[T]he agents went in as soon as [Wang] came out of the apartment.\"). Baccari told Wang that the agents had an arrest warrant for her and a search warrant for electronics. *Id.* at 6:17–22. Baccari then read Wang her *Miranda* rights from a card. *Id.* at 6:23–7:4.\n\nIn an affidavit submitted with her suppression motion, Wang stated, \"[W]hile I was still handcuffed in the hallway, a female FBI agent asked me if I wanted to make a statement. I said I wanted to speak to my lawyer first.\" Wang Aff. ¶ 5, ECF No. 199-4. Wang did not testify at the hearing.\n\nBaccari, who was \"supposed to try to talk to [] Wang on the day of the arrest,\" testified that Wang neither asked for a lawyer in the hallway nor stated that she did not want to speak. Tr. at 7:8–14, 19:15–17, 45:9–13. Baccari also testified that she did not ask Wang to make a statement in the hallway. *Id.* at 7:17–19. Instead, Baccari wanted to make Wang feel more comfortable \"in the hopes that [Wang] would like to speak to\" Baccari. *Id.* at 7:20–8:4. Baccari said that because her \"intention was to bring [Wang] back inside [the apartment] to attempt to try and speak with her, [] there would be no real reason for me to do that outside in the hallway.\" *Id.* at 27:15–18.\n\n2\n\nWang, Baccari, and another agent remained in the hallway for \"a couple of minutes\" and then entered the apartment. *Id.* at 8:5–7. The three walked by Wang's kitchen, where Baccari saw \"a line of phones on the kitchen counter,\" before they entered Wang's bedroom. *Id.* at 8:8– 17. There, Baccari saw a cell phone on Wang's nightstand. *Id.* at 9:5–8. Baccari asked Wang \"if this was her phone and the phone that she used every day.\" *Id.* at 9:9–11. Wang said yes. *Id.* at 9:13. Baccari requested the phone's passcode. *Id.* at 9:18. Wang answered, \"777777\" (the \"Sevens Passcode\"). *Id.* at 9:19–22, 10:3–6. Baccari then asked Wang if the phones in the kitchen belonged to her. *Id.* at 10:13–18. Wang replied that they did and volunteered that she had multiple phones because she was \"a refugee of the CCP.\" *Id.* at 10:19–23.\n\nBaccari asked if Wang knew where Kwok was that morning. *Id.* at 11:3–8. Wang indicated that she did not. *Id.* at 11:18. Baccari inquired whether Wang would like to give a statement, and Wang responded, \"I think I'd like to have my attorney.\" *Id.* at 11:20–12:4. Baccari estimated that Wang invoked her right to counsel around 6:15 a.m., approximately ten minutes after Baccari's first interaction with her. *Id.* at 27:21–28:1, 30:14–31:9.\n\nBaccari did not \"have any further substantive conversation with\" Wang because she \"had asked for an attorney at that point,\" and said that the agents' \"focus would have transitioned to processing her, taking her down to transport and process her.\" *Id.* at 12:5–14.\n\nLater that morning, when asked by another agent, Wang provided a different passcode (the \"Non-Sevens Passcode\"). *Id.* at 12:25–13:5, 41:5–16. Baccari testified that she was \"not as confident that\" Wang had disclosed the Non-Sevens Passcode before invoking her right to counsel. *Id.* at 41:5–16. Baccari did not recall when she told the other agents that Wang had requested her lawyer. *Id.* at 43:18–44:7.\n\nThe agents took Wang to 26 Federal Plaza at approximately 7:00 a.m., about forty-five\n\nminutes after she had asked to speak with her attorney. *Id.* at 34:21–25.\n\nThe FBI accessed thirteen of Wang's electronic devices. *See* GX-S1; ECF No. 261 at 3, 5. Five were either freely accessible or accessed by non-passcode methods. GX-S1*.* Eight were accessed using the Sevens Passcode. *Id.* No device was accessed using the Non-Sevens Passcode. *Id.*\n\nWang moves to suppress both the Sevens Passcode and the eight devices accessed using the Sevens Passcode. *See* Def. Br. at 8 n.10, ECF No. 278.\n\n## **LEGAL STANDARD**\n\nThe Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination guarantees that custodial interrogation \"must cease until an attorney is present\" if the defendant requests counsel. *Miranda v. Arizona*, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966). \"[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 reference 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). Interrogation includes both express questioning and \"any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.\" *Rhode Island v. Innis*, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). But, \"routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation protected by *Miranda*.\" *United States v. Haygood*, 157 F. App'x 448, 449 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order).\n\nOnce the defendant has established the basis for a motion to suppress a statement\n\nobtained in violation of *Miranda* and *Edwards*, the Government bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers' actions were legal. *United States v. Deleston*, No. 15 Cr. 113, 2015 WL 4745252, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015); *accord Colorado v. Connelly*, 479 U.S. 157, 168 (1986).\n\n## **DISCUSSION**\n\nThe question before the Court is whether Wang, having received the *Miranda* warnings and before reentering the apartment, invoked her right to counsel in the hallway. The Court concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she did not; rather, she provided the Sevens Passcode before asking to speak with her attorney. Therefore, there is no *Edwards* violation, and suppression is not warranted.\n\nBaccari testified that Wang did not request counsel in the hallway. Tr. at 7:8–14, 45:9– 13; *see id.* at 27:21–28:1, 30:14–31:9. Baccari recalled that she did not ask Wang to say anything and Wang said nothing. *Id.* at 7:15–19. This was consistent with Baccari's stated goal: to \"make [Wang] feel a bit more comfortable instead of asking her questions in the hallway outside . . . in the hopes that she'd like to speak with me.\" *Id.* at 7:17–8:4, 19:15–17. Baccari testified that in the bedroom, in response to her inquiry about the phone on the nightstand and its passcode, Wang stated that the phones in the apartment were hers and disclosed the Sevens Passcode. *Id.* at 9:5–10:23. Wang gave this information to Baccari before she asked to speak with her attorney. *Id.* at 10:3–12:4.\n\nWang urges this Court to reject Baccari's account of the events for several reasons. First, Wang suggests that Baccari was not confident about her assertion that she did not speak with Wang in the hallway. Wang points to the Government's notes of an April 2, 2024 interview with Baccari, in which Baccari said that she didn't \"*think* [she] would have asked [Wang] in the\n\n5\n\nhallway to make a statement.\" Def. Br. at 2 (quoting Tr. at 27:8–9) (emphasis added in brief). But, Baccari explained that her \"intention was to bring [Wang] back inside to attempt to try and speak with her, so there would be no real reason for me to do that outside in the hallway.\" Tr. at 27:15–18. Therefore, Baccari said, her hesitation in the April 2 interview reflected an attempt to explain why her actions aligned with her intention that morning, rather than—as Wang suggests—uncertainty. *See United States v. Iodice*, 525 F.3d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that an agent \"provid[ing] different levels of detail regarding his recollection of the events\" in two separate statements did not undermine his credibility).\n\nSecond, Wang argues that Wang and Baccari did not enter the apartment until 6:18 a.m., so the 6:15 a.m. invocation must have taken place in the hallway. According to Baccari's notes, Wang was arrested at about 6:05 a.m., and Wang requested counsel around 6:15 a.m. *See* DX-1 (3501-17); Tr. at 30:3–31:4. However, an FBI Form FD-302—a document authored by Katrina Laperuta, one of the FBI agents on the scene, which summarized the agents' search of Wang's apartment—states that \"entry\" photos were taken at 6:18 a.m. and the search commenced \"thereafter.\" *See* DX-2 (3501-05);<sup>1</sup> Tr. at 33:17–34:10. As an initial matter, Baccari testified that the timestamps were \"approximate[].\" Tr. at 27:21–28:1, 31:5, 36:20. But even if the timestamps were precise, the record supports the conclusion that Wang, Baccari, and the other agents entered the apartment before the entry photos were taken. Indeed, Baccari testified that the agents went into the apartment to \"clear\" it \"as soon as [Wang] came out of the apartment,\"\n\n<sup>1</sup> At the hearing, Wang introduced as DX-2 only the FD-302 with Bates stamp 3501-05. *See* Tr. at 33:17–34:10. The Government states that DX-2 nevertheless includes documents with Bates stamps 3501-05 to 3501-15, claiming that the FD-302 is only the \"first page of a document that spans from 3501-05 to 3501-15.\" Gov. Br. at 4 n.1, ECF No. 279. The Court disagrees. The Government—when providing Wang with 3500 material—\"chose to mark 3501-05 through 15 as separate documents.\" Def. Opp. at 1, ECF No. 285. And, the documents do not comprise one single document: for example, the FD-302 is marked as 3501-05, a photo log is marked as 3501-09, and the search warrant is marked as 3501-15. *See id.* at 2. Therefore, DX-2 includes only the document Bates-stamped 3501-05, and the Court shall not rely on documents that were not introduced into evidence at the hearing.\n\nTr. at 25:23–25, and that Baccari, Wang, and one other agent stayed in the hallway for only \"a couple of minutes\" before entering the apartment and going to Wang's bedroom. *Id.* at 8:5–7, 24:20–25:6. This timeline supports a 6:15 a.m. invocation of the right to counsel in the bedroom, consistent with Baccari's notes.\n\nThird, Wang contends that the structure of Baccari's notes—i.e., the sequence and arrangement of the words on the page—establish that Baccari discussed Wang's phones after Wang asked to speak with her attorney. Baccari's notes are depicted below. DX-1 (3501-17).\n\n3/15/2023\n\nest. (0605) yvette wang\nRights Road - moved 2\nest. (615am)\n\nuse all phones? - yes\n\n0 CCP after her - so always getting\nhacked. Family arrested 2017\nb/c she's dissident - they can't\ncome b/c of passports taken -\nshe can't go back\n\nWang argues that because the note stating \"use all phones? yes\" sits below the note indicating the time when Wang \"invoked,\" Baccari must have elicited the Sevens Passcode after Wang requested counsel. *See* DX-1 (3501-17); DX-3 (3501-16). But, it is logical for Baccari to have recorded the time of the *Miranda* reading, taken notes about the subsequent conversation, and then gone back to the top of the page to note the time that Wang requested counsel. Wang also claims that it \"would [] have made sense\" for Baccari to have asked about Kwok's whereabouts—prompting Wang to request her lawyer, *see* Tr. at 11:18–12:4—before asking about the phones. Def. Br. at 7–8. That might be so, but it does not bear on the issue of when\n\nWang actually asked for her attorney. *See Mathie v. Fries*, 121 F.3d 808, 812 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that it is not clear error to credit \"coherent and facially plausible\" testimony \"that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence\").\n\nFinally, Wang argues that Baccari and other agents continued asking questions after Wang requested counsel. Baccari testified that this might have been the case and that the question eliciting the Non-Sevens Passcode may have followed Wang's invocation of counsel. Tr. at 41:5–16. To the extent that these were not routine booking questions, Wang's answers may be validly suppressed.<sup>2</sup> *See Haygood*, 157 F. App'x at 449. But, there is no evidence that agents elicited the Sevens Passcode—the only one Wang challenges, Def. Br. at 8 n.10 following her invocation.\n\nIndeed, the only evidence that Wang asked for her lawyer in the hallway, before she disclosed the Sevens Passcode, is her affidavit. Wang chose not to testify. \"[I]n practice, the self-serving affidavit of the moving defendant is usually disregarded if [s]he declines to testify at the hearing.\" *United States v. Polanco*, 37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). \"Courts give greater weight to witness testimony, which was subject to cross examination . . . even where an adversary has submitted an affidavit or declaration,\" if the witness testimony is found to be credible. *United States v. Cherry*, 541 F. Supp. 3d 407, 422–23 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (cleaned up). \"Whatever minor inconsistencies [Wang has] claimed, they do not impair the officer['s] credible recounting of the events at issue.\" *United States v. Ortega*, No. 15 Cr. 320, 2015 WL 6143758, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2015).\n\nAccordingly, the Government has demonstrated that Wang did not invoke her right to counsel in the hallway. Rather, she provided the Sevens Passcode prior to requesting counsel.\n\n<sup>2</sup> For the reasons explained in the Court's March 22, 2024 order, a question about cell phone passcodes is not a routine booking question. *See* Order at 20–21 & n.7.\n\nBecause there was no *Edwards* violation, the Court need not address whether the Government would have inevitably discovered the Sevens Passcode. *See* Order at 20–22.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Wang's motion to suppress the Sevens Passcode and the\n\nevidence subsequently retrieved using the Sevens Passcode is DENIED.\n\nThe Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 196.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 22, 2024 New York, New York\n\nOS","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: 04/22/2024\n\n-against-（诉）\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）,\n\n23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDefendant（被告）.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge（地区法官）:\n\n被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）被控十一项电汇欺诈、证券欺诈和非法货币交易罪名，以及共谋实施诈骗受管辖组织犯罪、电汇和银行欺诈、洗钱和证券欺诈。S2, ECF No. 215。王提出动议，请求压制其在 2023 年 3 月 15 日被捕期间透露的手机密码，以及随后使用该披露密码从其设备中调取的证据。ECF No. 196；参见 ECF No. 197 第 11-13 页。\n\n2024 年 4 月 9 日，本院举行了证据听证会以解决事实问题，包括王在提供密码之前是否援引了其获得律师帮助的权利，以及政府是否必然会获取这些手机。Dkt. Entry 4/9/24；参见 Order 第 20 页, ECF No. 251。Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局，简称“FBI”）的特工 Melissa Baccari 和 Jessica Cardenas 为政府作证，同案作证的还有 Jessica Volchko 和 Christian Isolda，两人均为 FBI 计算机分析响应小组的数字取证审查员。Tr. 第 3:13–4:4、46:1–16、53:9–54:13、75:7–76:5 行。王没有传唤任何证人。本院对所有证人的证言予以采信。基于下文阐述的理由，王的动议被驳回（DENIED）。\n\n2023 年 3 月 15 日，FBI 官员在王位于曼哈顿的公寓将其逮捕。Tr. 第 4:23–5:5 行。包括 Baccari 在内的大约十一名 FBI 特工是逮捕小组的成员。同上，第 5:6–15 行。清晨 6:00 左右，特工敲了王家的门并要求她到门前来。同上，第 5:21–6:4、20:1–16 行。王没有立即照做，逮捕小组“拨打了四个［电话］号码”试图联系她。同上，第 20:20–22、21:16–24 行。当王来到门前时，她被带到走廊并戴上了手铐。同上，第 6:11–16、22:8–17 行。随后王被“交接”给 Baccari，后者当时站在给王戴上手铐的特工身后。同上，第 6:3–4、17–19 行。Baccari 和另一名女性特工与王进行交谈，而逮捕小组的其他成员则进入公寓进行“现场清查”。同上，第 6:18–7:7、25:23–25 行（“［王］一走出公寓，特工们就进去了。”）。Baccari 告诉王，特工们持有针对她的逮捕令以及针对电子设备的搜查令。同上，第 6:17–22 行。随后 Baccari 拿着卡片向王宣读了米兰达权利（Miranda rights）。同上，第 6:23–7:4 行。\n\n在随其压制动议提交的一份宣誓书（affidavit）中，王陈述道：“当我还戴着手铐在走廊里时，一名女性 FBI 特工问我是否愿意做陈述。我说我想先和我的律师谈谈。”Wang Aff. ¶ 5, ECF No. 199-4。王未在听证会上作证。\n\n“原定在逮捕当天尝试与［］王交谈”的 Baccari 作证称，王既没有在走廊里要求请律师，也没有表示她不想说话。Tr. 第 7:8–14、19:15–17、45:9–13 行。Baccari 还作证称，她并没有在走廊里要求王做陈述。同上，第 7:17–19 行。相反，Baccari 是想让王感到更放松一些，“希望［王］会愿意与” Baccari 交谈。同上，第 7:20–8:4 行。Baccari 表示，由于她的“意图是将［王］带回［公寓］内部尝试与她交谈，［］我根本没有真正的理由在外面走廊里那样做。”同上，第 27:15–18 行。\n\n王、Baccari 和另一名特工在走廊停留了“几分钟”，随后进入了公寓。同上，第 8:5–7 行。三人在进入王的卧室之前经过了王的厨房，Baccari 在那里看到“厨房柜台上有一排手机”。同上，第 8:8–17 行。在卧室里，Baccari 在王的床头柜上看到了一部手机。同上，第 9:5–8 行。Baccari 询问王“这是不是她的手机，以及是不是她每天使用的手机”。同上，第 9:9–11 行。王回答说是。同上，第 9:13 行。Baccari 索要该手机的密码。同上，第 9:18 行。王回答：“777777”（即“7字密码”）。同上，第 9:19–22、10:3–6 行。Baccari 随后询问王厨房里的手机是否属于她。同上，第 10:13–18 行。王回答说属于她，并主动说明她有多部手机是因为她是“CCP（中国共产党）的难民”。同上，第 10:19–23 行。\n\nBaccari 询问王那天早上是否知道 Kwok（郭文贵）在哪里。同上，第 11:3–8 行。王表示她不知道。同上，第 11:18 行。Baccari 询问王是否愿意做陈述，王回答说：“我想我想找我的律师。”同上，第 11:20–12:4 行。Baccari 估计王援引其获得律师帮助的权利是在清晨 6:15 左右，即 Baccari 与她首次接触后约十分钟。同上，第 27:21–28:1、30:14–31:9 行。\n\nBaccari 没有与王“进行任何进一步的实质性交谈”，因为她“当时已经要求请律师”，并表示特工们的“工作重点已转向对其进行登记处理，将她带下去移送并进行登记处理”。同上，第 12:5–14 行。\n\n当天上午晚些时候，在另一名特工询问时，王提供了另一个不同的密码（即“非7字密码”）。同上，第 12:25–13:5、41:5–16 行。Baccari 作证称，她“没有那么确定”王是在援引其获得律师帮助的权利之前透露了非7字密码。同上，第 41:5–16 行。Baccari 不记得自己是何时告诉其他特工王已要求找律师的。同上，第 43:18–44:7 行。\n\n特工们于上午 7:00 左右将王带至 Federal Plaza（联邦广场）26 号，大约在她要求与律师交谈四十五分钟之后。同上，第 34:21–25 行。\n\nFBI 访问了王拥有的十三台电子设备。参见 GX-S1；ECF No. 261 第 3、5 页。其中五台为无需密码即可直接访问，或通过非密码方式进行了访问。GX-S1。八台是使用7字密码访问的。同上。没有任何设备是使用非7字密码访问的。同上。\n\n王提出动议，请求压制7字密码以及使用7字密码访问的八台设备。参见 Def. Br. 第 8 页注 10, ECF No. 278。\n\nLEGAL STANDARD（法律标准）\n\n第五修正案（Fifth Amendment）禁止强迫自证其罪的规定保证：如果被告要求聘请律师，拘押中的讯问“必须停止，直至律师到场”。Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966)。“当被指控人在拘押讯问期间援引了［其］要求律师到场的权利时，……除非被指控人［自身］主动与警方进行进一步的沟通、交流或交谈，否则在向［其］提供律师之前，［其］不得再受到当局的进一步讯问。”Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484–85 (1981)。援引该权利“需要明确主张（clear assertion）获得律师帮助的权利”，而非模棱两可的说辞，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)（引文格式经清理，强调为原文所加）。讯问既包括明示的提问，也包括“警方的任何言辞或行为……只要警方应当知道这些言辞或行为合理地可能引起嫌疑人自证其罪的回答”。Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980)。但是，“常规的入案登记提问不构成受米兰达保护的讯问。”United States v. Haygood, 157 F. App'x 448, 449 (2d Cir. 2005)（简要命令）。\n\n一旦被告确立了提出压制因违反 Miranda 和 Edwards 规定而获取的陈述的动议基础，政府即承担举证责任，须以优势证据（preponderance of the evidence）证明执法人员的行为合法。United States v. Deleston, No. 15 Cr. 113, 2015 WL 4745252, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015)；一致判决 Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168 (1986)。\n\nDISCUSSION（讨论）\n\n摆在本院面前的问题是：王在接受米兰达警告后且在重新进入公寓之前，是否在走廊里援引了其获得律师帮助的权利。本院认定，政府已以优势证据证明她并没有这样做；相反，她是在要求与律师交谈之前提供了7字密码。因此，不存在违反 Edwards 的情形，不应支持压制动议。\n\nBaccari 作证称王没有在走廊要求请律师。Tr. 第 7:8–14、45:9–13 行；参见同上，第 27:21–28:1、30:14–31:9 行。Baccari 回忆说她没有要求王说任何话，王也什么都没说。同上，第 7:15–19 行。这与 Baccari 所陈述的目标一致：即“让［王］感到稍微放松一些，而不是在外面走廊里向她提问……希望她会愿意与我交谈。”同上，第 7:17–8:4、19:15–17 行。Baccari 作证称，在卧室里，针对她对床头柜上的手机及其密码的询问，王表示公寓里的手机都是她的，并透露了7字密码。同上，第 9:5–10:23 行。王是在要求与律师交谈之前向 Baccari 提供这些信息的。同上，第 10:3–12:4 行。\n\n王基于数项理由促请本院不采信 Baccari 对事件的叙述。首先，王提出 Baccari 对自己未在走廊与王交谈的断言并不确定。王指出了政府对 2024 年 4 月 2 日与 Baccari 面谈的记录，记录中 Baccari 称她“认为（think）自己不会在走廊里要求［王］做陈述”。Def. Br. 第 2 页（引用 Tr. 第 27:8–9 行）（辩护状中添加了强调）。但是，Baccari 解释说，她的“意图是将［王］带回内部尝试与她交谈，所以我根本没有真正的理由在外面走廊里那样做。”Tr. 第 27:15–18 行。因此，Baccari 表示，她在 4 月 2 日面谈中的迟疑反映的是她试图解释为什么她的行为符合她那天早上的意图，而不是——如王所提出的那样——由于不确定。参见 United States v. Iodice, 525 F.3d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 2008)（裁定特工在两份不同的陈述中“对其事件回忆提供了不同程度的细节”并不影响其可信度）。\n\n其次，王辩称，王和 Baccari 直到清晨 6:18 才进入公寓，因此 6:15 的权利援引必然发生在走廊。根据 Baccari 的记录，王大约在 6:05 被捕，王大约在 6:15 要求请律师。参见 DX-1 (3501-17)；Tr. 第 30:3–31:4 行。然而，一份由现场 FBI 特工之一 Katrina Laperuta 撰写、概述特工搜查王公寓情况的 FBI FD-302 表格文件载明，“进入（entry）”照片是在 6:18 拍摄的，搜查在“此后”开始。参见 DX-2 (3501-05)；1 Tr. 第 33:17–34:10 行。首先，Baccari 作证称时间戳是“大致的（approximate）”。Tr. 第 27:21–28:1、31:5、36:20 行。但即使时间戳是精确的，记录也支持如下结论：王、Baccari 和其他特工在拍摄进入照片之前就已进入公寓。事实上，Baccari 作证称，“［王］一走出公寓”，特工们就进入公寓进行“清查”，\n\n1 在听证会上，Wang（王，即王雁平）作为 DX-2 提交的仅有 Bates 编号为 3501-05 的 FD-302 报告。参见 Tr. 33:17–34:10。政府方称 DX-2 无论如何均包含 Bates 编号为 3501-05 至 3501-15 的文件，并主张 FD-302 仅是“涵盖 3501-05 至 3501-15 的文件的第一页”。Gov. Br. at 4 n.1, ECF No. 279。本法院不予采纳。政府方在向王提供 3500 材料时——“选择将 3501-05 至 15 标记为独立文件”。Def. Opp. at 1, ECF No. 285。而且，这些文件并不构成一份单一文件：例如，FD-302 被标记为 3501-05，照片日志被标记为 3501-09，搜查令被标记为 3501-15。参见同上，第 2 页。因此，DX-2 仅包含 Bates 编号为 3501-05 的文件，本法院不得依赖未在听证会上作为证据出示的文件。\n\nTr. 25:23–25，并且 Baccari（巴卡里）、王以及另一名探员在走廊仅停留了“几分钟”，随后便进入公寓并前往王的卧室。同上，8:5–7, 24:20–25:6。该时间线支持早晨 6:15 在卧室中援引律师权，这与巴卡里的笔记一致。\n\n第三，王主张巴卡里笔记的结构——即页面上字词的顺序与排布——证明巴卡里是在王要求与其律师通话之后，才讨论了王的手机。巴卡里的笔记如下所示。DX-1 (3501-17)。\n\n3/15/2023\n\nest. (0605) yvette wang\nRights Read - moved 2\nest. (615am)\n\nuse all phones? - yes\n\n0 CCP after her - so always getting\nhacked. Family arrested 2017\nb/c she's dissident - they can't\ncome b/c of passports taken -\nshe can't go back\n\n王辩称，由于写有“所有手机都用？是”的记录位于表明王“援引权利”的时间记录下方，因此巴卡里必定是在王请求律师之后才套取了 Sevens 密码。参见 DX-1 (3501-17); DX-3 (3501-16)。但是，巴卡里先记录宣读 Miranda（米兰达）权利的时间，记录随后的谈话内容，然后再返回页面顶部记下王请求律师的时间，这是符合逻辑的。王还声称，巴卡里在询问手机之前先询问 Kwok（郭文贵）的下落——从而促使王要求找律师，参见 Tr. 11:18–12:4——“本来是合乎情理的”。Def. Br. at 7–8。情况可能确实如此，但这与以下问题无关：\n\n王究竟于何时请求了律师。参见 Mathie v. Fries, 121 F.3d 808, 812 (2d Cir. 1997)（指出采信“连贯且表面合理”且“未被外在证据所矛盾”的证言并非明显错误）。\n\n最后，王主张巴卡里和其他探员在王请求律师后继续提问。巴卡里作证称情况可能确实如此，且套取 Non-Sevens 密码的提问可能发生在王援引律师权之后。Tr. 41:5–16。在这些提问不属于常规入案登记提问的范围内，王的回答可以被有效排除。2 参见 Haygood, 157 F. App'x at 449。但是，没有证据表明探员在王援引权利之后套取了 Sevens 密码——这也是王唯一提出异议的密码，Def. Br. at 8 n.10。\n\n事实上，能够证明王在透露 Sevens 密码之前曾在走廊要求找律师的唯一证据，就是她的宣誓书。王选择不出庭作证。“在实践中，如果提出动议的被告人拒绝在听证会上作证，其自利性宣誓书通常不予考虑。”United States v. Polanco, 37 F. Supp. 2d 262, 264 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（Southern District of New York / 纽约南区）。如果证人证言被认定为可信，“法院会给予经过交叉询问的证人证言更大的分量……即便对方提交了宣誓书或声明书”。United States v. Cherry, 541 F. Supp. 3d 407, 422–23 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)。“无论［王］声称存在何种细微的矛盾之处，它们都不会削弱执法人员对涉案事件的可信陈述。”United States v. Ortega, No. 15 Cr. 320, 2015 WL 6143758, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2015)。\n\n因此，政府方已证明王并未在走廊中援引其律师权。相反，她是在请求律师之前提供了 Sevens 密码。\n\n2 基于本法院 2024 年 3 月 22 日裁定中所阐明的理由，关于手机密码的提问不属于常规入案登记提问。参见 Order（裁定）第 20–21 页及附注 7。\n\n因为不存在违反 Edwards 案规则的情形，本法院无需探讨政府方是否必然会发现 Sevens 密码。参见裁定第 20–22 页。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，王关于排除 Sevens 密码以及\n\n随后使用 Sevens 密码获取之证据的动议予以驳回（DENIED）。\n\n法院书记官长受命结案处理 ECF No. 196 项下的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年4月22日 纽约州纽约市\n\nOS","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Yanping Wang","CCP","Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":196,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":197,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":199,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":215,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":251,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":261,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":278,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":279,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":285,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2657,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:31:12"}