OPINION & ORDER On October 26, 2017, a criminal complaint was filed accusing Emil Sosunov of narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §846 and Magistrate Judge Ellis signed a warrant for his arrest. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The next day, Sosunov was arrested in the doorway of his apartment at or around 6:00 a.m. At the time of his arrest, officers entered his apartment to perform a protective sweep. During the sweep, they observed evidence that subsequently formed the factual support for a search warrant. The search warrant was executed later that same day. On December 14, 2017, Sosunov was indicted for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Evidence supporting this charge was obtained during the execution of the search.Before the Court is Sosunov’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the search warrant. Defendant’s principle argument is that various infirmities with the protective sweep and “plain view” evidence require that they be ignored and, that once ignored, the warrant is without sufficient factual support. In addition, he argues that: (1) the arrest warrant itself was not supported by probable cause; and (2) that there are additional and separate bases to suppress all cellphone location and pen register information as well as evidence found through searches of the cellular telephones found in his apartment.Because there were contested issues of fact — in particular, the circumstances surrounding where the defendant was physically arrested and whether a protective sweep was appropriate — the Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 3, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it intended to deny the motion and that a written decision would follow. This is that decision.I. FACTS1A. Preliminary Investigation2The following facts are drawn from sworn statements in the Complaint as well as evidence adduced in connection with this motion. The Court’s factual statements are based on what a preponderance of the evidence shows.In September and October 2017, law enforcement was investigating Dr. Varuzhan Dovlatyan and his office manager, William Thomas, for narcotics conspiracy. (ECF No. 1, Compl. 6.) Without any physical examination, two undercover agents were able to obtain oxycodone prescriptions from Dovlatyan. (Id.) Dovlatyan simply accepted cash in exchange for the prescriptions. (Id.) When one of the agents asked where he could fill the prescriptions, Dovlatyan directed him to Thomas, his employee. (Id.) The Complaint states Dovlatyan “instructed [the agent] that if [he] encountered [any] ‘problems’ to call Thomas.” (Id.) Thomas referred the agents to his “connect”: a pharmacy in Brooklyn which charged $360 to fulfill the prescription. (Id.) Thomas told an agent that he could “get [oxycodone prescriptions filled] all the time without no problem” there.3 (Id.)During a review of prescription records provided by the New York State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (“BNE”), law enforcement discovered that over the preceding year or so, Dovlatyan had issued prescriptions to a number of Sosunov’s co-defendants for hundreds (or, in some cases, over a thousand) oxycodone pills. (Id. at 9.) Fifteen of those prescriptions — issued between April 20, 2016 and June 13, 2017 — prescribed a total of 2,250 oxycodone pills for two individuals with the last name “Sosunov”; the address indicated on the BNE report was the same address as that at which the defendant lives. (Id.
