FL5: State’s failure to prove active pursuit of SW precluded reliance on inevitable discovery

The State failed to show that law enforcement was in pursuit of a search warrant at the time of the improper entry into defendant’s residence. It was thus error for the trial court to rely on the inevitable discovery doctrine to deny defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court also had not addressed the State’s alternative argument that the independent source doctrine applied, and the trial court’s order did not set forth all of the factual findings that would permit the court to fully and independently address the application of the doctrine. Remand was thus required for the trial court to determine the application of the doctrine. O’Hare v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1349 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 1, 2019).

This entry was posted in Inevitable discovery. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.