CA11: When there are multiple grounds supporting a search, appellant has to respond to all

An appellate court can affirm denial of suppression on any ground supported by the record. And, when the district court finds multiple independent grounds to deny suppression, the appellant has to rebut all of them. Here, the district court found (1) a lack of standing, (2) the automobile exception justified the search, (3) then an inventory would have occurred, and (4) inevitable discovery applied. All of them are supported by the record. United States v. Eagan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8966 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).

Plaintiffs were arrested for sexual assault. One had his case dismissed before trial, and the other was acquitted. There was probable cause to proceed against them. “To be sure, the TCSO defendants’ failure to investigate may not have been ‘topnotch policing.’ Harte v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cnty. of Johnson, 864 F.3d 1154, 1178 (10th Cir. 2017) (Phillips, J., writing separately). But that does not mean it violated the Fourth Amendment. Once the TCSO defendants had sufficient probable cause, they had no obligation to ‘exhaust every possible lead, interview all potential witnesses, [or] accumulate overwhelming corroborative evidence.’ Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1142 (quoting Beard, 24 F.3d at 116). [¶] Because Rosen has failed to identify any evidence indicating that the TCSO defendants lacked probable cause or acted recklessly when investigating and arresting him, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on both of his Fourth Amendment claims.” Crothers v. Carr, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8978 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.