Reasonable suspicion did not justify officer’s search of defendant’s trunk. The search was premature, and inevitable discovery was not applied to save the search. United States v. Stevens, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18690 (E.D. Pa. March 16, 2007):
The police plainly had reasonable suspicion sufficient to approach and temporarily detain Defendant; in other words, they were justified in conducting a brief investigatory stop because the officers had “a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot.” See United States v. Goodrich, 450 F.3d 552, 559 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968), and Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). The police had information from a victim suggesting that a man, who reasonably fit Defendant’s description, committed a crime. Moreover, because the “articulable facts” may have led the police to believe that Defendant was in possession of a weapon, the police were justified in patting down Defendant as a matter of officer safety. Terry, 392 U.S. at 29-30 (police with reasonable grounds to believe suspect was armed and dangerous were justified in patting down suspect to discover weapons and quickly neutralize situation). Further, pursuant to Terry, the police were justified in approaching Defendant with drawn guns, see United States v. Edwards, 53 F.3d 616, 619-20 (3d Cir. 1995), and they could have detained Defendant for a limited period of time, in order to effectuate the purpose of their stop, United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985). See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion).
Nonetheless, while reasonable suspicion made the stop lawful and would have justified the detention of Defendant for a short period of time before Henderson arrived, it did not justify the search of Defendant’s trunk. The police needed probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle. See Burton, 288 F.3d at 100. After patting down Defendant and finding no weapons, a reasonable and prudent officer would not have believed that probable cause existed to search Defendant’s trunk. The police knew, however, that Henderson was to arrive momentarily; upon his arrival, the police would have known whether Defendant was Henderson’s alleged assailant. Once Henderson identified Defendant, the police would have had probable cause to believe that Defendant’s trunk contained a weapon, and the constitutional safeguards would have been fulfilled. However, the police failed to wait that short period for Henderson to arrive, a period which the law afforded them, and as such, they lacked probable cause to search the trunk. In this case, while the officers’ instincts may have been correct, their judgment was not.
. . .
The inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in this case. Applying it in cases such as this would undermine the deterrence aspect of the exclusionary rule. The police officers should have known that probable cause did not exist to search the trunk. Moreover, they knew that a witness with the ability to establish (or undermine) the existence of probable cause would be arriving in a matter of moments. In a circumstance such as this, where it is obvious that probable cause is lacking and that the facts necessary to determine its existence, vel non, are imminently available, the only way to assure compliance with the probable cause requirement is to refuse to apply the inevitable discovery exception. In contrast to Nix, application of the inevitable discovery doctrine here would provide an incentive for police misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Haddix, 239 F.3d 766, 768 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (Applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to those instances where police had probable cause and could have obtained a warrant, but failed to do so, would obviate the warrant requirement altogether.); United States v Reilly, 224 F.3d 986, 994 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In this case, the court finds that the public interest in deterrence far outweighs the interest in providing a jury with unlawfully-seized evidence. Patience is not only a virtue; here, it was a legal requirement. As such, the evidence seized from Defendant’s car is suppressed.
Failure to file a motion to suppress that led to 404(b) evidence was not ineffective assistance because the issue was resolved on appeal and, in any event, the information that was admitted did not reasonably change the outcome. United States v. Huff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18604 (E.D. La. March 15, 2007).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims were, in effect, appeals from state court decisions on the same issues, and they were barred by the Booker-Feldman doctrine. Benjamin v. Abraham, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18685 (E.D. Pa. March 15, 2007).*
Georgia assumes for sake of argument that a search that recovered a murder victim’s purse was found with an invalid warrant, and it finds consent to search was attenuated. Spence v. State, 281 Ga. 697, 642 S.E.2d 856 (2007):
Analyzing the attenuation factors set forth in Brown to the present case, we turn first to the time factor. In this regard, Moore’s consent to search occurred during the on-going, assumed illegal search of the apartment. Thus, there is effectively no lapse of time between the assumed illegal conduct and Moore’s consent. The record, however, shows that the duration of the search had no bearing on Moore’s consent.
As for intervening circumstances, the record shows that Moore executed a consent-to-search form that informed him that he had the right to refuse the consent to search; that he could revoke the consent to search at any time; that he had not been promised anything in exchange for his consent; and that he had not been threatened or compelled to give the consent. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Brown specified that the attenuation analysis must be “answered on the facts of each case” In the present case, a significant factor supporting a finding that Moore’s consent was not a product of the illegal conduct, but was instead a product of his free will is that he was not the target of the officer’s investigation.
As for the police misconduct in this case, even though we have assumed that the officer’s affidavit given in support of the search warrant failed to establish probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found at Spence’s residence, the illegality lacks any of the purposefulness or flagrancy that the Supreme Court weighed against the government in Brown. There, two police detectives, who acted without probable cause and a warrant, broke into Brown’s apartment, conducted a search, pointed guns at Brown when he arrived home, and arrested him. Clearly, the degree of flagrant misconduct and coercion that was present in Brown is not present here.
Evaluating the foregoing attenuation factors, we conclude that Moore’s consent to search was an act of free will that sufficiently attenuated the discovery of the purse from any assumed illegality of the officer’s search. The trial court, accordingly, did not err in denying Spence’s motion to suppress the purse.
