How have the courts considered suppression in this case?

As to the final factor, the record does not show that the conduct here was purposeful or flagrant. There is no evidence of any subterfuge on the part of the officers or Agent Hoover. see Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U.S. 600, 60910, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (plurality opinion) (describing a deliberate strategy of withholding Miranda warning, obtaining a confession, and then issuing Miranda warnings and securing a second confession). The officers were understandably focused on securing the laser to prevent any further threats to aircraft. However, as the government concedes, "the facts fall short of the type of exigent circumstances needed to sustain a warrantless arrest in a home." This factor tilts slightly against suppression, but in light of the other factors, it is not dispositive.