Based on years of experience, FBl agent Felipe Martinez suspected that Capital Services, Inc., a stock brokerage and investment services firm, was involved in fraudulent activity. In order to obtain evidence, Martinez posed as an ordinary client. He asked to use a restroom, then slipped out of the public part of the business and found an office whose closed door was marked "Private. No Entry without

Authorization from Manager" He entered the office, looked through files, and located documentary evidence to prove his suspicions. The evidence obtained by Martinez was key in supporting fraud charges that are now pending against David Espinoza . the owner of Capital Services. Espinoza has fled a pretrial motion asking the court to suppress the evidence obtained by Menendez in the search of the office. Should the evidence be suppressed? Why or why not?