LA4: State carries burden on inevitable discovery and it failed here

Here there was a warrantless entry into the house for a gun. Defendant was in custody outside. The state had the burden on inevitable discovery and failed. “In the instant case, the state failed to point to any alternative lawful means that had been set in motion that would have made the discovery (and seizure) of the firearm ‘inevitable,’ nor were any discussed in Officer Paciullo’s testimony. At no point did the officers apply for a warrant, nor begin to apply for a warrant; in fact, Officer Paciullo testified that she could have, but chose not to. Nothing in the record before this Court supports the theory that the police would have inevitably accessed the firearm by lawful means.” State v. Davis, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 909 (La. App. 4 Cir. May 31, 2023).

Plaintiffs were not seized when they left the house because another person had been arrested. Hill v. City of Fountain Valley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13517 (9th Cir. June 1, 2023).*

A stop under ambiguous state law was still reasonable under Heien. United States v. Outen, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95512 (D.S.C. May 31, 2023) (“‘”To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.”‘ Id. at 60-61 (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949)).'”)