Evidence Supressed Based On Illegal Search In Counterfeit Sneaker Case In Buffalo Federal Court. (Decision dated April 21 st, 2010)

In a major legal victory in Federal court in Buffalo, Attorney Todd D. Greenberg, Esq., along with Buffalo Attorney Mark J. Mahoney, Esq., who represented a Co-defendant, obtained suppression of evidence found in a search of Mr. Greenberg’s client’s home, including pictures of Nike sneakers, financial records and approximately $450,000 in cash. Addabbo and Greenberg’s client was charged, along with 22 other alleged co-conspirators, with Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods and Conspiracy. The Indictment alleged that the Conspiracy involved a violation of Nike, Inc. trademarks. It was alleged that Addabbo & Greenberg‘s client, with others, “…devised and engaged in a criminal scheme to traffic in millions of dollars of footwear bearing counterfeit Nike marks.” An arrest warrant was issued from the Federal Court in Buffalo and our client was arrested in his home in Flushing. During the search, Federal agents recovered photos of Nike sneakers, financial records and $450,000 in cash. The Government argued that the seizure was lawful under the “plain view” doctrine, which states, in substance, that if the police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant. After extensive pretrial hearings in Buffalo, the court found, as argued by Attorney Todd. D. Greenberg, Esq., that the agents had no reason to be in those portions of the apartment from which the items were seized because they arrested the defendant at his doorway. Further, with regard to the “plain view” argument by the Government, the Court noted that this alleged “plain view” seizure, where the incriminating nature of the items must be “immediately apparent”, took two hours, as established during Mr. Greenberg’s cross examination of the Federal Agent. Under such circumstances, the Government could not sustain its burden of establishing that the incriminating nature of the items were “immediately apparent”. It should be noted that 18 of the other defendants pleaded guilty and now, after the granting of this suppression motion, Mr. Greenberg’s client stands a good chance of a dismissal of the case. (Note: This decision was rendered by a Magistrate-Judge and must be confirmed by The District Court Judge.; Mr. Greenberg was joined on The Brief by Jonathan Edelstein, Esq.)