United States v. Washington, 1:20-cr-00029

Defendant David Burgin was charged with multiple drug trafficking offenses based on evidence seized from 56 Grimes Street, Buffalo, NY, during the execution of two New York State search warrants on February 19, 2020.
The first search warrant authorized entry and search only of the "lower front" of the building; officers unlawfully entered the second floor and attic, conducting what they claimed was a "protective sweep."
A second search warrant was then obtained, based on observations made during the unauthorized search, and more evidence (drugs, firearms, cash) was seized from the second floor and attic.
Burgin filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from these areas, arguing violations of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Magistrate Judge recommended suppression, finding Burgin had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched and that no valid exception to the warrant requirement applied; the Government objected, asserting lawful police conduct and alternative bases for admission.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s recommendations and granted the suppression motion, finding neither the "protective sweep," plain view, nor independent source/inevitable discovery doctrines justified the seizures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing/Privacy	Burgin lacked reasonable expectation of privacy, as property was primarily commercial and access was shared.	Burgin had a sufficient privacy interest in the second floor and attic due to use, control, keys, storage of personal items.	Standing found; Burgin had reasonable expectation of privacy.
Protective Sweep	Officers could lawfully conduct a protective sweep for safety due to the nature of drug operations and risk of hidden individuals.	No articulable facts existed to justify a protective sweep; no evidence of danger or unknown persons inside.	Sweep unjustified; no facts supported officer safety concerns.
Validity of Second Warrant/"Fruit of Poisonous Tree"	Second warrant independently valid; would have discovered evidence inevitably.	Second warrant based solely on observations from unlawful entry; evidence must be suppressed as fruit of initial illegality.	Evidence suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree; neither doctrine applies.
Application of Exclusionary Rule	Suppression unwarranted due to isolated negligence/good faith; public interest in evidence.	Law enforcement conduct was reckless, not in good faith; exclusionary rule appropriate to deter misconduct.	Exclusionary rule applied; evidence suppressed to deter future violations.

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; must have reasonable expectation of privacy)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (sets standard for protective sweeps incident to arrest)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (evidence obtained from unlawful search is inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree")
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (articulates the inevitable discovery doctrine)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (privacy expectations are highest in one’s home)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986) (legitimate expectation of privacy must be societally recognized)