Epstein Secrets

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). FI6 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

ddressed a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation when a search warrant authorized the seizure of papers that the defendant asserted were "personal." The Andresen Court rejected the claim, announcing the "general rule: `There is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal.'" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). Epstein's Fourth Amendment claim also fails under the post- Boyd case law. Andresen I Maryland, supra , addressed a claim of a Fourth Amendmen

ddressed a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation when a search warrant authorized the seizure of papers that the defendant asserted were "personal." The Andresen Court rejected the claim, announcing the "general rule: `There is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). F16 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

ddressed a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation when a search warrant authorized the seizure of papers that the defendant asserted were "personal." The Andresen Court rejected the claim, announcing the "general rule: `There is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render