FL2: Calling the DA to see about whether a SW was needed is not actively seeking a warrant for inevitable discovery purposes

The trial court erred in applying the inevitable discovery doctrine. The officer had probable cause to conduct the search of defendant’s laptop, but this was insufficient to justify the detective’s failure to obtain a warrant to search it. His call to the state attorney’s office inquiring as to whether to secure a search warrant or simply obtain defendant’s wife’s consent did not constitute active pursuit of a search warrant. There was no evidence that a search warrant was being actively pursued prior to the illegal search of the laptop’s contents. Perez v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 15280 (Fla. 2DCA Oct. 26, 2018).

Defendant lived with his girlfriend, and he was on probation. She consented to the search of the house and brought the police back to the house. There was reasonable suspicion for the parole search based on corroborated CI information. State v. Holmes, 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 735 (Oct. 24, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Inevitable discovery, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.