On the totality, the finding of an arrest warrant curing an allegedly illegal stop favors the state on application of the exclusionary rule under Strieff. “Because the connection between Mousseaux’s detention and the subsequent search incident to her arrest was interrupted by the existence of a valid, preexisting warrant unrelated to this case, ‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has [allegedly] been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence[.]’ Hudson, 547 U.S. at 593, 126 S. Ct. at 2164. We reverse.” State v. Mousseaux, 2020 SD 35, 2020 S.D. LEXIS 60 (June 17, 2020).
Even if the protective sweep of defendant’s apartment was unreasonable [which it likely wasn’t] there was enough untainted information for the search warrant. Therefore, inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Arauza, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108023 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2020).*