{"id":3815,"date":"2010-05-15T18:38:17","date_gmt":"2010-02-06T08:27:28","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-02-06T08:27:28","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3815","title":{"rendered":"AR: Revocation of consent after hiding place of contraband found was too late"},"content":{"rendered":"

By the time defendant sought to revoke his consent, the officer had probable cause to believe that his car had contraband secreted in it, and revocation came too late. Rockward v. State<\/a>, 2010 Ark. App. 110, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 98 (February 3, 2010).<\/p>\n

Officers entered defendant\u2019s home on a federal arrest warrant which was valid under Payton, and a state search warrant. The smell of marijuana inside supported a wider search. While there was reason to question the validity of the state search warrant, it is obvious the police could have gotten a federal search warrant, too, and inevitable discovery supported the search. United States v. Jackson<\/a>, 596 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

In this case, the officers did not seek a search warrant based on the evidence which could have been seized pursuant to the arrest warrant because they already had a state search warrant. But, had they had reason to question the validity of the state search warrant or had there been no state search warrant, we have little doubt that the officers nonetheless could have secured a search warrant and conducted the search that yielded the disputed evidence.<\/p>\n

As to the second requirement for invoking the inevitable discovery doctrine, it almost goes without saying that the government was actively pursuing a substantial alternate line of investigation at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. Lamas, 930 F.2d at 1102. Indeed, we have indicated that the “active-pursuit element” may no longer be necessary to invoke the inevitable discovery rule. Id. at 1104. In this case, we need not address the continuing vitality of the active-pursuit element, as an ongoing grand jury investigation that has already led to an indictment would clearly satisfy it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-3815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3815","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=3815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3815\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}