\u201cThe search here was generally unreasonable, but it was saved by inevitable discovery. \u201cIn the present case, the Government does not contend that Hobbs had probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle. Hobbs did not have a warrant. His search was not intended to protect himself from hazards within Defendant’s arm reach or to prevent the destruction of evidence. His search was not in pursuit of evidence related to the crime of arrest. His alleged \u2018inventory search\u2019 of the vehicle was conducted sloppily, against protocol, and seemingly not for the purpose of inventorying the vehicle. Make no mistake: but for the inevitable-discovery exception, Hobbs’s search of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal and a violation of the Constitution.\u201d United States v. Travis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49324 (E.D.Wis. Mar. 21, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where the search warrant said to search electronic devices \u201cat said place,\u201d it didn\u2019t mean at the site of the seizure. United States v. Kasnetz, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50613 (N.D.Tex. Mar. 22, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A search warrant already being sought was inevitable discovery for this allegedly illegal search. That warrant was issued with probable cause. United States v. Potter, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50899 (E.D.Tenn. Mar. 22, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe search here was generally unreasonable, but it was saved by inevitable discovery. \u201cIn the present case, the Government does not contend that Hobbs had probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle. Hobbs did not have a warrant. His search was … Continue reading