# Securities and Exchange Commission v. Xia

> District Court, E.D. New York · February 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307482

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** February 11, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307482

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that return of 9 Notably, the formal investigation that forms the basis of this case commenced on November 27, 2018—nearly five months after the May 21, 2018 interview. defendant to speak with the Government days after his release was sufficient period of time to “diss…
- finding that defendant’s retention of counsel “between the airport encounter and the later interview” was an intervening circumstance

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-CV-5350 (PKC) (CLP)
- against -

RICHARD XIA, a/k/a YI XIA; and
FLEET NEW YORK METROPOLITAN
REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, f/k/a FEDERAL
NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGIONAL
CENTER, LLC,

Defendants,

-and-

JULIA YUE, a/k/a JIQING YUE,

Relief Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is the motion in limine of Defendants Richard Xia, a/k/a Yi Xia, Fleet
New York Metropolitan Regional Center, LLC, f/k/a Federal New York Metropolitan Regional
Center, LLC (“Fleet”), and Relief Defendant Julia Yue, a/k/a Jiqing Yue (collectively,
“Defendants”)1 to exclude at the February 14, 2022 show-cause hearing (the “Show-Cause
Hearing”) all evidence that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) obtained after
its interview of Defendant Xia on May 21, 2018. (Dkt. 50.) The SEC filed an opposition to
Defendants’ motion, (Dkt. 56), and Defendants filed a reply, (Dkts. 67, 68). Additionally, the SEC
filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of the SEC examiners who conducted

1 Although Julia Yue is a relief defendant, the Court uses the term “Defendants” throughout
this Memorandum and Order for convenience.
the May 21, 2018 interview, (Dkt. 75), which Defendants oppose, (Dkt. 77). For the reasons stated
herein, Defendants’ motion is denied and the SEC’s motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case and recites only the
background relevant to Defendants’ pending motion in limine. Although the parties dispute certain

details of the events that transpired on May 21, 2018, the following facts are undisputed.
I. May 21, 2018 Interview
On May 21, 2018, three SEC Division of Examinations2 employees John Celio, Edward
Janowsky, and Javen Zhong (the “Examiners”) visited non-party Fleet Financial Group, Inc.’s
(“FFG”)3 office in Flushing, Queens to conduct a “voluntary inquiry.” (See Defendants’ Motion
in Limine (“Defs.’ Mot.”), Dkt. 50-1, at 2–3; Celio Decl., Dkt. 56-1, ¶ 5.) Defendant Xia was not
at the office when the Examiners first arrived, but he came to the office approximately two hours
later and was interviewed in the FFG’s conference room. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. 50-1, at 3; First Xia
Declaration (“Xia Decl. I”), Dkt. 50-2, ¶¶ 3. 5; SEC’s Opposition (“SEC Opp.”), Dkt. 56, at 3.)
Prior to interviewing Xia, the Examiners asked him to sign, and Defendant Xia did sign,

Form 2866, titled “Supplemental Information for Persons Requested to Supply Information
Voluntarily to the Commission’s Examination Staff.” (Xia Decl. I, Dkt. 50-2, ¶¶ 5–6; SEC Opp.,
Dkt. 56, at 4.) The introductory paragraph to Form 2866 states that the “form is being provided to
[Defendant Xia] because the Commission’s examination staff has requested that [Xia] voluntarily

2 Prior to 2020, “the Division of Examinations was known as the Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations [“OCIE”].” (Celio Declaration (“Celio Decl.”), Dkt. 56-1, ¶ 1.)
3 “FFG, owned and controlled by Xia, was [the] developer of the Eastern Mirage Project.”
(Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. 50-1. at 2.)
provide information.” 4 (Form 2866, Dkt. 50-24, at 1; Dkt. 56-3, at 1.) The Form’s “Effect of Not
Supplying Information” header advises that “[t]here are no direct sanctions and thus no direct
effects for failure to provide all or any part of the information requested to be supplied on a
voluntary basis.” (Id.) Defendant Xia initialed each of the four pages and signed the Form on the

last page. (Id. at 1–4; Xia Decl. I, Dkt. 50-2, ¶¶ 5–6.) After Defendant Xia initialed and signed
Form 2866, the Examiners interviewed him for approximately two hours and, at the end of the
interview, gave Defendant Xia a letter with a list of documents they were requesting him to
produce and with instructions on how to produce them. (Xia Decl. I, Dkt. 50-2, ¶¶ 5–6, 8; Celio
Decl., Dkt. 56-1, ¶¶ 8–10; Voluntary Document Request (“Doc. Request”), Dkt. 56-4.) The letter
again explained that the SEC was “conducting an informal inquiry” and requested Defendant Xia
to voluntarily produce documents “pertinent to the inquiry.” (Doc. Request, Dkt. 56-4, at 1.) At
the conclusion of the interview, Defendant Xia invited the Examiners “to visit the construction site
of the Eastern Mirage Project.” (Second Xia Declaration (“Xia Decl. II”), Dkt. 68, ¶ 8; Celio
Decl., Dkt. 56-1, ¶ 13.)

II. Document Productions Following the Interview
In May 2018, the Examiners contacted Defendant Xia three times, via one e-mail and two
phone calls, regarding the document production, until the Examiners were advised that Defendant
Xia had retained counsel to represent him with respect to the document requests. (Xia Decl. I,
Dkt. 50-2, ¶¶ 9–10; Celio Decl., Dkt. 56-1, ¶ 14.) Subsequently, Defendant Xia made document
productions to the SEC’s Division of Examinations through his counsel at the time, Elaine

4 Although the Court discusses Defendant Xia’s knowledge that he had a right to refuse the
interview, “knowledge of a right to refuse is not a prerequisite of a voluntary consent.”
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 234 (1973).
Greenberg, and on November 14, 2018, Greenberg received a letter from the SEC stating that the
inquiry was closed. (Xia Decl. I, Dkt. 50-2, ¶ 11; Celio Decl., Dkt. 56-1, ¶¶ 15, 18.)
III. Formal Investigation
In April 2019, Defendant Xia and Greenberg “received a Formal Order of Investigation
from the [SEC’s Enforcement Division] dated November 27, 2018.” (Xia Decl. I, Dkt. 50-2, ¶

11.) The SEC also served subpoenas on Defendant Xia, Relief Defendant Yue, “FFG’s banks,
accountants, and contractors,” and Defendant Xia’s “tax-preparer,” among others. (Id.) Defendant
Xia was deposed by the SEC in May 2019, with Examiners Janowsky and Celio present, although
Defendant Xia did not speak to them. (Id. at 12.) Following the formal investigation, the SEC
commenced the present suit on September 27, 2021. (See Complaint, Dkt. 1.)
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const.
amend. IV.5 The exclusionary rule “is the primary means for deterring violations of the Fourth
Amendment.” United States v. Levy, 217 F. Supp. 3d 643, 660 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Utah v.
Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 237 (2016)). “Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed

in a particular case . . . is ‘an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment
rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by [government] conduct.” United
States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984) (internal quotations marks omitted).

5 The Fourth Amendment applies to government conduct in both criminal and civil matters.
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 67 & n. 11 (1992).
When applicable,6 the rule “excludes from evidence both (i) ‘primary evidence’ obtained
as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure; and (ii) evidence later discovered and found to
derive from an unlawful search or seizure, the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Levy, 217
F. Supp. at 660. Due to the “substantial social costs” of the exclusionary rule, “which sometimes

include setting the guilty free,” “[s]uppression of evidence . . . has always been [the courts’] last
resort, not [] first impulse.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006)). Accordingly, the
Supreme Court has “repeatedly emphasized that the rule’s costly toll upon truth-seeking and law
enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application.” Pennsylvania
Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364–65 (1998).
Even where the exclusionary rule applies, there are several exceptions to it. One such
exception is the attenuation doctrine, which provides that “[e]vidence is admissible when the
connection between unconstitutional [government] conduct and the evidence is remote or has been
interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that ‘the interest protected by the constitutional
guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.’”

Strieff, 579 U.S. at 238 (quoting Hudson, 547 U.S. at 593). “The attenuation doctrine evaluates

6 “[T]he exclusionary rule is a judicially-created mechanism of safeguarding against
unreasonable searches and seizures – violations of the Fourth Amendment – primarily through its
deterrent effect.” United States v. Hightower, 950 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Leon, 468
U.S. at 906). “[B]ecause the [exclusionary] rule is prudential rather than constitutionally
mandated,” it “does not apply in a number of contexts.” (Id. (collecting cases where the
exclusionary rule does not apply, i.e., grand jury proceedings, civil tax proceedings, civil
deportation proceedings, and federal habeas proceedings)). Although “the Supreme Court has
refused . . . to extend the exclusionary rule to non-criminal contexts,” Townes v. City of New York,
176 F.3d 138, 145–16 (2d Cir. 1999), it has not “ruled out the possibility of applying the
exclusionary rule” in civil proceedings, United States v. Kirsteins, No. 87-CV-964, 1989 WL
49796, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. May 10, 1989). The Court assumes, without deciding, that the
exclusionary rule could apply in this case. Out of abundance of caution, the Court emphasizes that
it does not rule on the applicability of the exclusionary rule to the present civil proceeding.
the causal link between the government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence” and, where
the events following the search “break the causal chain,” the evidence is not suppressed. Id. at
239.
II. Suppression of the SEC’s Evidence is Not Warranted
Defendants argue that Defendant Xia’s May 21, 2018 interview was an “illegal and

unconstitutional” search; that the SEC obtained, “directly and indirectly,” evidence from said
interview; that such evidence is tainted; and that “no intervening events could sever such
connections” and “trigger the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule.” (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt.
50-1, at 20–21.) The Court finds that, even if the exclusionary rule applies here, which is highly
unlikely for several reasons,7 there is no tainted evidence, direct or indirect, at issue here, and the
attenuation doctrine severs any link between the May 2018 interview and the evidence the SEC
seeks to present at the Show Cause Hearing.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that there is no direct evidence at issue here. It is
undisputed that Defendant Xia did not produce any documents to the Examiners on the day of the
May 2018 interview. (See Defendants’ Reply (“Defs.’ Reply”), Dkt. 67, at 9 (stating that “Xia did

7 The Court notes that, even accepting Defendant Xia’s description of the May 21, 2018
events, Defendant Xia likely would fail to meet his initial burden of establishing that the
Examiners’ visit of the FFG’s office and their interview of him qualify as an unreasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Herron, 18 F. Supp. 3d 214, 221 (E.D.N.Y.
2014) (citing United States v. Arboleda, 633 F.2d 985, 989 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S.
917 (1981)) (finding that the “initial burden of establishing that a government official acting
without a warrant subjected him to a search or seizure” rests with the defendant); see also United
States v. Corbett, No. 20-CR-213 (KAM), 2021 WL 4480626, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021)
(“When a defendant moves to suppress evidence that he contends derives from an illegal search,
he ‘bears the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the
challenged search or seizure.’” (quoting United States v. Osorio, 949 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1991))).
Even assuming, arguendo, that a search took place, the Court would be hard-pressed to find that
the search was unlawful and involuntary, and that the exclusionary rule would even apply in this
case. However, the Court does not reach these issues because the attenuation doctrine alone
defeats Defendants’ Fourth Amendment challenge.
not submit documents to the SEC during the . . . [interview].”).) Defendants’ only argument
regarding direct evidence is that “[t]he evidence gathered by the Examiners directly” during the
interview “includes Xia’s statements made during the interview.” (Id. at 3, n.3.) Defendants do
not explain what else they allege to be “included” as direct evidence.8 However, Defendant Xia

does not argue that the SEC is attempting to use the statements he specifically made at the May
2018 interview during the Show-Cause Hearing—instead, his arguments are based on the
documents Defendant Xia’s former counsel Greenberg produced on his behalf and the evidence
gathered through SEC’s formal investigation.
The Court also finds that there is no indirect evidence at issue here. But-for causality is a
necessary condition for suppression. See Hudson, 547 U.S. at 592. The manner in which the SEC
decided to request documents from Defendant Xia—through an in-person interview at FFG’s
office—is not the but-for cause of Defendant Xia’s production of documents to the SEC. Prior to
visiting FFG’s office, the SEC was already in receipt of a tip “related to a number of securities
offerings that Fleet was involved in, including real estate development projects called the Eastern

Mirage Project and the Eastern Emerald Project.” (SEC Opp., Dkt. 56-1, ¶ 5.) Before arriving at

8 Defendants also argue that, because Defendant Xia did not produce certain documents to
the SEC (which the SEC submitted to the Court in support of its motion for a temporary restraining
order), the SEC “bears the burden to explain how it obtained these letters and exhibits independent
of the” May 2018 interview at FFG’s office. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. 50-1, at 24). Defendants appear
to be implying that simply because Defendants did not produce these documents to the SEC, the
SEC must have obtained them on May 2018 at the FFG office. First, the Court rejects Defendants’
argument that the “burden is on the SEC to explain how it obtained these” documents. (Id.) As
already discussed, the Court is not convinced that burden shifting is appropriate here. See Herron,
18 F. Supp. 3d at 221 (explaining that the “initial burden of establishing that a government official
acting without a warrant subjected him to a search or seizure” rests with the defendant, and “[o]nce
the defendant has met this burden, the burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence . . . that the search or seizure did not violate the Fourth
Amendment[.]”). Second, the Court rejects Defendants’ unsupported insinuation that simply
because a document was not obtained directly through Defendants’ document productions, it must
have been obtained unlawfully.
FFG’s office, the SEC prepared a letter specifically addressed to Defendant Xia that explained that
the SEC was “conducting an informal inquiry” and requested Defendant Xia to voluntarily produce
documents “pertinent to the inquiry.” (Doc. Request, Dkt. 56-4, at 1.) The letter indicated that,
once Defendant Xia “received and reviewed th[e] request,” he could call either Ronald Krietzman,

assistant regional director of SEC’s Examination Program and signatory to the letter, or Celio,
with “any further questions.” (Id.) The letter enclosed Exhibit A, which listed the various
documents sought by the SEC related to Fleet, FFG, and other entities. (Id. at 2.)
There is no indication that the SEC drafted or enlarged its document request based on the
statements that Defendant Xia made at the May 2018 interview. In fact, the contrary is true. The
SEC was fully prepared to request the documents in Exhibit A regardless of the interview. In other
words, the manner in which the SEC requested Defendant Xia to produce the documents was not
determinative of the SEC’s desire or intent to obtain these documents, and Defendant Xia
voluntarily produced them with the assistance of counsel, nearly a month after the interview had
concluded. See Hudson, 547 U.S. at 592 (“In this case, of course, the constitutional violation of

an illegal manner of entry was not a but-for cause of obtaining the evidence. Whether that
preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had
obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house.”).
Even if the interview could be characterized as the but-for cause of Defendant Xia’s
document production to the SEC, that would not be enough. The Supreme Court has “never held
that evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because ‘it would not have come to light but
for the illegal actions of the [government].’” Id. (citing Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815
(1984)). But-for causation can be too attenuated to justify the costly sanction of excluding
evidence. The Court “need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because
it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the [government]. Rather, the more
apt question in such a case is whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence
to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by
means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” Wong Sun v. United States,

371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963). Thus, intervening events can break the causal chain between an
unlawful search and the evidence obtained, dissipating the “taint” of the government’s conduct.
Courts rely on the following three factors in analyzing the break of the causal chain: (1)
“the ‘temporal proximity’ between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence to
determine how closely the discovery of evidence followed the unconstitutional search;” (2) “the
presence of intervening circumstances;” and (3) “the purpose and flagrancy of the official
misconduct.” Strieff, 579 U.S. at 238 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603–04 (1975)).
Applying that standard here, the Court finds that Defendant Xia’s document productions to the
SEC, even if subject to the exclusionary rule, are not tainted.
First, “substantial time” passed between the interview, which took place on May 21, 2018,

and the first production to the SEC, made on June 18, 2018—i.e., 28 days later. Id. (“Our
precedents have declined to find that this factor favors attenuation unless ‘substantial time’ elapses
between an unlawful act and when the evidence is obtained.” (citing Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S.
626, 633 (2003) (per curiam))). This is not a case where the evidence the government seeks to
introduce was discovered “only minutes” after the alleged unlawful search.9 Id. at 233; see also
Kaupp v. 538 U.S. at 633 (“10 or 15 minutes”); United States v. Walker, 965 F.3d 180, 188 (2d
Cir. 2020) (“[A]pproximately ten minutes”); Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 491 (finding that return of

9 Notably, the formal investigation that forms the basis of this case commenced on
November 27, 2018—nearly five months after the May 21, 2018 interview.
defendant to speak with the Government days after his release was sufficient period of time to
“dissipate the taint”).
Second, there is a significant intervening circumstance—Defendant Xia retained
experienced counsel, Elaine Greenberg, who voluntarily produced the documents to the SEC on

behalf of Defendant Xia beginning June 18, 2018. See United States v. Drago, 18-CR-394 (GRB)
(AYS), 2021 WL 3518305, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021), report and recommendation adopted,
2021 WL 2980699 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2021) (“[W]hile [defendant] declined to speak with the
Government on the day of execution of the Warrant, he freely elected to proffer, in the presence
of counsel, three weeks later.”); United States v. Gordon, 954 F.3d 315, 323 (1st Cir. 2020)
(finding that defendant’s retention of counsel “between the airport encounter and the later
interview” was an intervening circumstance). The exclusionary rule is not a tool that a defendant,
looking back on his actions and regretting the voluntary choices he made, can use to suppress
highly probative evidence.10 Defendants’ reliance on Strieff is inapposite. In Strieff, the Supreme
Court found that the discovery of a valid arrest warrant pre-dating the unlawful search was an

intervening circumstance that strongly favored the government. Strieff, 579 U.S. at 240. The

10 “In determining whether consent [to search] was voluntarily given, courts look to the
following non-exhaustive list of factors, including: 1) the youth, lack of education, or low
intelligence of the defendant; 2) the lack of any advice as to the defendant’s constitutional rights;
3) the length of detention; 4) the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and 5) the use
of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep.” United States v. Pena, 547 F.
Supp. 2d 323, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226). “Other relevant factors
include whether guns were drawn or whether the ‘consenting’ adult was threatened.” Id. (quoting
United States v. Lopez, No. 97-CR-483 (RPP), 1997 WL 790582, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 1997).
The application of these factors here demonstrates that Defendant Xia voluntarily consented to the
SEC’s search for the documents that he produced through his counsel on June 18, 2018. See
Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 247 (“In this case, there is no evidence of any inherently coercive
tactics—either from the nature of the [government] questioning or the environment in which it
took place.”); id. (“Indeed, since consent searches will normally occur on a person’s own familiar
territory, the specter of incommunicado police interrogation in some remote station house is simply
inapposite.”).
unrelatedness of the pre-existing arrest warrant to the defendant’s interactions with the government
prompted the Supreme Court to observe that “[t]he attenuation doctrine evaluates the causal link
between the government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence, which often has nothing to
do with a defendant’s actions.” Id. That observation, however, is completely irrelevant here,

where it is precisely Defendant Xia’s actions—i.e., his retention of counsel and his production of
documents to the SEC through that counsel—that break the causal link.11
Finally, the Court finds that, to the extent that Defendant Xia alleges misconduct by the
Examiners, his allegation is not supported. The Examiners, acting on a tip, arrived at the FFG
office on May 21, 2018 and presented Defendant Xia with Form 2866, which explained that they
were conducting a voluntary inquiry. At the conclusion of the interview, the Examiners left
Defendant Xia with a letter that once again explained that the inquiry and request for production
of documents was voluntary. As soon as the Examiners learned that Defendant Xia had retained
counsel, they ceased any direct communication with Defendant Xia. Even accepting Defendants’
allegations regarding the Examiner’s conduct on May 21, 2018 as true, the Court finds no

misconduct in the Examiners’ actions. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. 50-1, at 2-4 (alleging, inter alia, that:
(1) “[t]he Examiners urged the office clerk, a young Chinese lady who could not speak English
fluently, to call Xia and tell him to either come to the Office immediately or submit to an interview
by phone;” (2) “[w]hile Xia was on the way, the Examiners explored the Office and interviewed
several employees;” (3) “[a]fter Xia arrived and met the Examiners in the Office’s conference

11 Defendants’ reliance on United States v. Molt, 589 F.2d 1247, 1248 (3d Cir. 1978), is
similarly misplaced. (Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. 67, at 10–11). In Molt, the Third Circuit only decided
“whether Molt’s consent to the search was invalidated by the agents’ innocent misrepresentation
of their authority under ss 1509-11 to search his premises.” Molt, 589 F.2d at 1249. The court
there did not consider whether retention of counsel acts as an intervening circumstance in applying
the attenuation doctrine.
room, the Examiners asked Xia several leading questions;” and (4) “[i]n response to Xia’s question
whether he should hire legal counsel, the Examiners told Xia that a majority of the examination
subjects simply agreed to OCIE’s document requests, that Xia could produce documents himself
via the SEC portal, and that hiring legal counsel would be costly.”).) At most, Defendants paint a

picture of negligence. “Conduct that is at most negligent weighs in favor of attenuation, as does
the absence of any indication that this unlawful [search] was part of any systemic or recurrent
[government] misconduct, a suspicionless fishing expedition, or a dragnet search for outstanding
arrest warrants.” Walker, 965 F.3d at 188 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Strieff, 579 U.S. at 233 (“Officer Fackrell was at most negligent, but his errors in judgment hardly
rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff’s Fourth Amendment rights. After the unlawful
stop, his conduct was lawful, and there is no indication that the stop was part of any systemic or
recurrent police misconduct.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that suppression of the SEC’s evidence in this case is not
proper. Moreover, in light of the Court’s findings that the evidence the SEC relies on is not tainted,

the Court finds that the Examiners’ testimony is irrelevant. The Court thus grants the SEC’s
motion to exclude the Examiners’ testimony at the Show Cause Hearing.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion in limine is denied and the SEC’s motion
in limine is granted.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: February 11, 2022
Brooklyn, New York

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307482. Public record. Not legal advice.