W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified, and SW based on what seen was suppressed

Defendant had managerial control over the business property searched enough that he had standing to challenge its search. The security sweep of the second floor was not reasonable and, to the USMJ, “ma[de] no sense”; there was no articulable reason for it. Search of a seized DVD player was fruit of the poisonous tree. “[T]he Court concludes that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply. It does not have a ‘high level of confidence’ that each of the contingencies asserted by the Government would have occurred, and that the evidence would have been lawfully recovered, absent the constitutional violation described above.” The exclusionary rule applies. United States v. Burgin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102324 (W.D. N.Y. May 29, 2025):

As described herein (see supra, pp. 9-12), law enforcement acted recklessly and with grossly negligent disregard for Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, and Granville was not the only law enforcement officer who acted in such a manner although Granville’s actions were particularly egregious. While the Court recognizes the great importance of the evidence obtained from 56 Grimes Street to the Government, the Court finds that suppression of this evidence against Defendant is warranted, as it will serve to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.