KS: Inevitable discovery not fully developed and remanded

Another case on inevitable discovery finds two of the three Brown factors satisfied. “Here, the officer discovered an arrest warrant that predated his encounter with Tatro. And Tatro has not argued the warrant was tainted, invalid, or related to the reasons the officer initiated the stop. Upon learning of the warrant, the officer had an independent duty to arrest Tatro entirely unrelated to the reasons for the initial stop. In other words, the arrest was lawful even if the initial seizure was not. And once the officer made a lawful arrest based on the warrant, he had the authority to search Tatro and her purse under the search incident to lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The second factor strongly favors the State. See 136 S. Ct. at 2062-63. Again, however, no single factor controls and all factors must be considered. See Brown, 422 U.S. at 600-04.” The court remands to the trial court for more findings on the flagrancy question. State v. Tatro, 2019 Kan. LEXIS 198 (July 26, 2019).* Similar is State v. Christian, 2019 Kan. LEXIS 197 (July 26, 2019), decided at the same time.