United States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355

Background

Defendant Benjamin Wey was later indicted on fraud, wire fraud, money-laundering, and Section 13(d) disclosure counts arising from an alleged scheme (2007–2011) to use nominees and reverse mergers to control and profit from several small-cap issuers.
On Jan 24–25, 2012 the FBI obtained and executed two nearly identical warrants: one for NYGG’s Manhattan offices and one for Wey’s apartment. Each warrant’s Exhibit A listed broad categories of documents to seize and Exhibit B listed ~220 people/entities (including NYGG and the Weys).
The supporting Komar and Garwood affidavits (not physically incorporated into the warrants) described specific alleged misconduct tied to a handful of issuers (SmartHeat, Deer, CleanTech, etc.) and set out more detailed probable-cause narratives and proposed computer-search protocols.
During execution, the FBI seized thousands of hard-copy documents and dozens of electronic devices; much electronic data (≈18 TB) was imaged and retained for years while multi-stage reviews using evolving search-terms were conducted well after the warrants issued.
Wey moved to suppress. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court found the warrants insufficiently particular and overbroad, found the government’s reliance not objectively reasonable, and granted suppression of all evidence seized.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrants were sufficiently particular	Wey: warrants were general, failed to identify crimes, lacked limiting linkage to alleged misconduct, and had no temporal bounds	Gov: exhibits and affidavit described securities/financial fraud; categories were illustrative and warrants not a blanket ‘all records’ grab	Court: Warrants lacked particularity — they did not identify crimes, used sweeping generic categories, and effectively authorized seizure of all records related to NYGG/Weys
Whether all-records (permeation) exception applies	Wey: affidavit did not show NYGG or the home was permeated with fraud; exception inapplicable	Gov: investigation showed pervasive fraud justifying broad seizure	Court: Exception did not apply — affidavits showed specific transactions and legitimate aspects of NYGG; no probable cause that entire business or home was a scam
Whether the good-faith exception saves the searches	Wey: officers could not reasonably rely on facially defective warrants; execution and post-seizure review showed recklessness	Gov: officers acted in objective good faith; briefings and warrant issuance by magistrate justify reliance	Held: Good-faith exception rejected — reliance was not objectively reasonable given clearly established law and the agents’ conduct (overseizure, lack of constraints, and later expansive electronic searches)
Appropriate remedy	Wey: suppress all fruits of searches	Gov: suppression too severe; limit remedy to items clearly beyond scope	Court: All seized evidence suppressed; warrants not severable and government offered no viable narrower remedy

Key Cases Cited

Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must itself be particular; supporting affidavit cannot cure a facially deficient warrant)
United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (warrant lacking linkage to alleged crimes; good-faith exception may apply only in narrow, fact-specific circumstances)
United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (particularity requirement and heightened concern for electronic searches)
United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (digital-search particularity and limits; warrants must link sought evidence to crimes)
United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (retention and later searches of electronic data implicate Fourth Amendment; need for reasonable review protocol)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (context on exclusionary rule’s purpose and limits)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule and focus on deterrence; good-faith contours)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule and when reliance on warrant is unreasonable)