evidence that Defendant “might” be accompanied by accomplices who “might” resort to violence to thwart the arrest or who “might” use violence “to protect their drug business.” Rather, our review of the record indicates a complete lack of any specific evidence suggesting that Defendant was engaged in an enterprise involving accomplices, such as middlemen, partners, growers, couriers, enforcers, or armed security personnel. Furthermore, at the time of the sweep, the agents had no evidence that would lead one to beli ctive sweep, the resulting search warrant is also invalid because it was based upon evidence tainted by the illegal entry, and all of the evidence seized from Defendant’s home must be suppressed as the fruit of the initial illegal entry. See Trudelle, 2007-NMCA-066, ¶ 40 (<HOLDING>); State v. Ingram, 1998-NMCA-177, ¶ 9, 126 N.M.
holding that where information obtained from illegal warrantless search of a briefcase was used to establish probable cause for the warrant to search briefcase evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant was properly suppressed holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant recognizing that evidence obtained from a search that is conducted pursuant to a warrant based partially on tainted information gathered during a prior illegal search is also tainted and must be suppressed internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search