{"id":2135,"date":"2008-07-22T07:03:18","date_gmt":"2008-06-07T13:21:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-07T13:21:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2135","title":{"rendered":"While consent was coerced, police had probable cause and would have otherwise gotten a search warrant and had started the process<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

While consent in this case was invalid and coerced, the state proved that inevitable discovery should apply because they had probable cause and, just as important, they were in the process of getting a search warrant. McDonnell v. State<\/a>, 981 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2008):<\/p>\n

Thus, federal law suggests that the inevitable discovery doctrine will not be applied in every case where the police had probable cause for a search warrant, but failed to get one. The cases focus on whether the police made an effort to get a warrant prior to the illegal search and whether strong probable cause existed for the search warrant.<\/p>\n

The trial court specifically found, based on competent, substantial evidence in the record, that Investigator Mathis was in the process of obtaining a warrant when Christopher consented to the search. See Cuervo v. State<\/em>, 967 So. 2d 155, 159 (Fla. 2007) (“An appellate court reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress presumes the trial court’s findings of fact are correct and reverses those findings only if they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence.”). The record also demonstrates that probable cause existed upon which a warrant could have been obtained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Search of a cruise ship cabin on return to port from a trip to Mexico was a routine border search. People v. Laborde<\/a>, 163 Cal. App. 4th 870, 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860 (2d Dist. 2008).<\/p>\n

Officers had probable cause for defendant’s arrest, and one communicated to another to yet another. So the search incident was valid. United States v. Hayden, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43604 (N.D. Ind. June 2, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}