DE: Inevitable discovery can’t be based on speculation

The state’s argument on inevitable discovery is really based on speculation, and that’s not enough. State v. Franks, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 561 (Aug. 1, 2024).

Plaintiff was arrested for drugs, held five months, then released. “We hold that the record evinces genuine disputes of material fact bearing on whether Harris, Sr. was arrested and charged without probable cause, and that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. We further hold that a plaintiff who was not convicted of a crime, but was arrested and detained for several months, can still state a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication of evidence claim, and the district court erred in holding otherwise.” Harris v. Town of S. Pines, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19485 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2024).*

“The question before this Court is whether the evidence presented at the hearing and at trial preponderates against the trial court’s determination that the defendant voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw. Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the evidence of the defendant’s physical and mental condition preponderates against a finding that the defendant possessed the capacity to consent, and therefore, the State failed to meet its burden.” State v. Allen, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 356 (Aug. 5, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Inevitable discovery, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.