James Kainen was quoted in the New York Law Journal about federal prosecutors’ securities fraud case against financier Benjamin Wey.
Fordham University School of Law professor James Kainen said Nathan’s “significant opinion,” which went “into exquisite detail,” represented a “real attempt to seriously draw a line and say, ‘You can actually go over this line.'” Law enforcement, he said, has too often proceeded as if catching those they believe are engaged in criminal acts outweighs constitutional considerations in their way. Nathan’s suppression order, along with the questions being asked from others on the bench in the Southern District, represent an attempt to “buck the tide” of unexamined acceptance of law enforcement’s good faith efforts, he said.
“All she did here was really take a look here seriously, and not sweep it under the rug.”
Still, others, such as Shearman & Sterling’s partner Stephen Fishbein, see Nathan’s decision in narrower terms, as “a fairly extreme case of a warrant executed in an usually general way,” rather than some radical new precedent.
However, he said the decision is an unavoidable message to law enforcement to take care of “basic blocking and tackling” when it comes to warrants.