“Rather than outline factual disputes, Windom’s motion to suppress offered three legal arguments—staleness, nexus, and lack of good faith—for why the affidavit was insufficient to support a search warrant. These arguments contained only perfunctory factual references, with none rising to the level of definite, detailed, and nonconjectural allegations. … This absence of disputed facts and primary reliance on issues of law alone demonstrate the district court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding without a hearing.” On appeal, defendant is more specific, but the specifics were never presented to the district court. United States v. Windom, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4036 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2023).
The government did not show that a search with a warrant was inevitable, so inevitable discovery fails. “The doctrine does not apply unless it was inevitable that routine procedures would have uncovered the evidence in question. … Though the doctrine requires courts to do some barebones gap-filling, it is not appropriate for the Court to over-speculate or accept conjecture from the government.” Motion to suppress granted. United States v. West, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28268 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 21, 2023)*