Probable cause alone is not enough for inevitable discovery. United States v. Troxel, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (D. Kan. 2008):<\/p>\n
Based on a balancing of these factors, the court finds that it does not have “a high level of confidence that the warrant in fact would have issued.” See Souza<\/em>, 223 F.3d at 1205. It appears that the Government relies on the fact that at the time the search of the cooler occurred, the officers had probable cause. In light of the Tenth Circuit’s strict standard for inevitable discovery in this context, however, this is not enough. See United States v. Moore<\/em>, 37 Fed. Appx. 963, 2002 WL 1335594 (10th Cir. Jun. 19, 2002) (discussing that Souza and other cases emphasize that “probable cause alone will not excuse the absence of a warrant otherwise required” in cases in which “obtaining a warrant was the only way the police could have legally opened the package”); see also United States v. Brown<\/em>, 64 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[W]hat makes a discovery ‘inevitable’ is not probable cause alone … but probable cause plus a chain of events that would have led to a warrant independent of the search.”). The Tenth Circuit is “very reluctant to apply the inevitable discovery exception in situations where the government fails to obtain a search warrant and no exception to the warrant requirement exists.” United States v. Souza<\/em>, 223 F.3d 1197, 1206 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that the doctrine should apply in the unique situation, relying heavily on the fact that the police had taken steps to obtain a warrant at the time of the premature, illegal search). The Tenth Circuit “more typically and readily appl[ies] the inevitable discovery exception in situations where some exception to the warrant requirement would have inevitably led to discovery of the evidence.” United States v. Moore<\/em>, 37 Fed. Appx. 963, 968 (10th Cir. 2002). Here, there was no exception to the warrant requirement that would have inevitably led officers to the discovery of the items in the cooler.<\/p>\n
Based on the balancing of the Cabassa<\/em> factors, combined with the fact that no exception to the warrant requirement applied to these items, the court finds that the items must be suppressed. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading