UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MICHAEL F. DURANTE,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Criminal Action No. 11-277 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to suppress the statements (and fruits)

of the employees of Defendant’s medical practice by Defendant Michael F. Durante. For the

reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

In brief, Defendant contends that, when law enforcement agents searched Defendant’s

medical practice office on March 24, 2011, they detained certain employees and questioned

them. Defendant makes a number of arguments in support of suppressing both the statements of

the employees and the evidence obtained as a result of such statements.

Defendant first contends that the employee interviews exceeded the scope of the search

warrant. There are two major problems with this argument. First, Defendant’s brief and the

employee certification are devoid of detail on this point and do not explain in the slightest what

questions, to what employees, exceeded the scope of the search warrant. The brief contains only

vague argument. 

As evidence in support, Defendant offers the certification of only one employee, Lorraine

Solomon. The certification states that the agents asked Ms. Solomon questions, and also

Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 142 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 639
“required me to help them in the search and required me to get charts for them.” (Solomon Cert.

¶ 8.) The certification does not state what questions the agents asked Ms. Solomon, nor what

answers she gave. The certification offers no basis for this Court to conclude that the agents

exceeded the scope of the search warrant. 

1

Second, the little information that the Solomon certification contains does not suggest

that the agents’ interactions with Ms. Solomon violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. 

Defendant states correctly the relevant legal principle: “the Fourth Amendment does require that

police actions in execution of a warrant be related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion.” 

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 611 (1999). Thus, this Court inquires into whether Defendant

has pointed to any evidence which suggests that the police actions in execution of the warrant

were not related to the objectives of the search. The certification states that the agents asked Ms.

Solomon some unspecified questions, and Defendant has not pointed to anything which suggests

that these questions were not related to the objectives of the search. The assertion that the agents

asked Ms. Solomon to help them in the search, without more, would also seem to fall within the

scope of permissible action – help with a search would appear to be related to the objectives of

the search. Lastly, the assertion that the agents required Ms. Solomon to get charts for them

(presumably, patient charts), without more, does not appear to point to any police action

unrelated to the objectives of the search. 

In support of his position, Defendant cites the decision of Judge DuBois in United States

v. Kofsky, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64161 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2007). Kofsky is so factually

 Defendant contends as well that the agents questioned his employees on matters that 1

were not designed to further the purposes of the search. Defendant has not supported this with

any evidence.

2

Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 142 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 640
different – the police had interviewed patients of a doctor during a search, rather than office

employees – that it does not bear even a glancing resemblance to the instant case. This Court

need not decide whether the decision by Judge DuBois to suppress the patient statements is

correct or incorrect. Indeed, the cases which Judge DuBois relied on – such as Wilson, cited

above – all recognize the principle that agents may question employees if it furthers the purposes

of the search. 

Defendant has provided no basis for this Court to conclude that the law enforcement

agent’s interactions with Ms. Solomon were not related to the objectives of the search, and thus

exceeded the scope of the search warrant. 

Defendant next offers a “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument:

The employees’ prolonged detention coupled with the agents’ statements

indicating that the employees were not free to leave, as well as the fact that the

employees were not advised that they did not have to answer questions or

participate in the search, render the agents’ actions unlawful. As a result, any

potential evidence elicited pursuant to those statements constitutes the fruit of the

poisonous tree and must also be suppressed.

(Def.’s Br. 6.) There are a number of problems with this argument, but the main ones are that

Defendant has not persuaded this Court that the agents’ interactions with the employees were

unlawful, nor has Defendant specified what evidence is alleged to be the fruit of this poisonous

tree. This argument does not provide a valid basis to suppress evidence from this search. This

Court need not reach the question of whether, under this doctrine, Defendant has standing to

assert a violation of another person’s constitutional rights.

Lastly, Defendant argues that the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule is

inapplicable here. This Court need not rule on this issue, because Defendant has not shown any

3

Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 142 Filed 11/03/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 641
valid basis for application of the exclusionary rule.

Defendant has failed to persuade this Court that evidence obtained as a result of the

agents’ interactions with Defendant’s employees during the search should be suppressed. 

Defendant’s motion to suppress will be denied.

For these reasons,

IT IS on this 3rd day of November, 2011,

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to suppress the statements (and fruits) of the

employees of Defendant’s medical practice (Docket Entry No. 120) is DENIED.

 s/ Stanley R. Chesler 

Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J

4

Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 142 Filed 11/03/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 642