Inevitable discovery doesn\u2019t apply here because there was no effort or even indication the government was going to get a search warrant. \u201cAccordingly, while the Court finds that the inevitable discovery doctrine is potentially applicable to Wrensford’s DNA sample, it concludes that the Government cannot meet its burden on the current record to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his DNA sample would inevitably have been obtained pursuant to routine VIPD procedures-that would necessarily have been followed here-for the collection of DNA samples by warrant.\u201d The government, however, gets to reopen the suppression hearing to further develop this issue. United States v. Wrensford, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138235 (D. V.I. Aug. 15, 2019).*<\/p>\n
There was an incorrect address on the search warrant application, but, considering the nature of the records the officer was working from, the court doesn\u2019t even find the officer negligent. Therefore, the Franks challenge failed, and that finding is credited. United States v. Glenn<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24328 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Inevitable discovery doesn\u2019t apply here because there was no effort or even indication the government was going to get a search warrant. \u201cAccordingly, while the Court finds that the inevitable discovery doctrine is potentially applicable to Wrensford’s DNA sample, it … Continue reading