11/03/2016
What keeps Huma up at night ...the Inevitable discovery rule ...
PushLegal
Information from PushLegal™ Statutes and Case Law Library
PushLegal: Federal Search and Seizure
"The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered." Murray v. United States, 487 US 533 (1988)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 US 387 (1977)
While neither [Defenants] incriminating statements themselves nor any testimony describing his having led the police to the victims body can constitutionally be admitted into evidence [because they were illegally obtained], evidence of where the body was found and of its condition might well be admissible on the theory that the body would have been discovered in any event, even had incriminating statements not been [unlawfully] elicited from [Defendant].
US v. Siciliano, 578 F. 3d 61 (1st Circuit 2009)
If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means... the evidence should be received.
United States v. Hernandez-Cano, 808 F. 2d 779 (11th Circuit 1987)
The Supreme Court explained that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable where the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. ... The Supreme Court also held that a requirement that the government prove the absence of bad faith prior to application of the inevitable discovery exception would similarly put the government in a worse position than if no illegal conduct had occurred; therefore, the government did not have to prove its good faith before it could take advantage of the exception.
US v. Marrocco, 578 F. 3d 627 (7th Circuit 2009)
At the time of the unlawful search, the officers were conducting an investigation that logically would have culminated in the discovery of the odor of the drugs on the money; that discovery would have been made even absent the illegal conduct, and the probability is therefore" very high that the evidence would have been discovered pursuant to a search warrant." ... [Souza] conclud[ed] that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because the officers took steps to prepare a warrant prior to the search, the officers had probable cause to believe the package contained contraband, a narcotics dog alerted to the container, and a warrant ultimately was issued.
US v. Ortega-Jimenez, 232 F. 3d 1325 (10th Circuit 2000)
[T]he exclusionary rule is inapplicable if the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.
US v. Goins, 437 F. 3d 644 (7th Circuit 2006)
"Whereas the exclusionary rule deprives the prosecution of evidence tainted by official wrongdoing and thereby discourages future improprieties, the inevitable discovery exception to the rule permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error..." United States v. Jones, 72 F.3d 1324, 1330 (7th Cir.1995)
What is PushLegal?
The PushLegal Case Law Library is an essential legal research resource for lawyers on the go. With PushLegal on your smartphone or desktop, you have lightning-fast access to statutes and leading case law, helping you get the answers you need in a hurry so you can win more cases. Available from the App Store and Google Play.
"Wherever I am, whenever I have questions, PushLegal has the answers."
-Dan Cogdell (Texas Super Lawyer since 2003)
PushLegal Apple iOS App PushLegal Google Android App
You are receiving this email because a PushLegal user forwarded content from the PushLegal app to your email address. Your email address will not be used by PushLegal for marketing purposes.
Copyright © 2016 PushLegal. All rights reserved.
Sent from my iPhone
