Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals Holds Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Does Not Allow for Circumvention of Warrant Requirement

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a District Court decision which denied a motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant. The case, U.S. v. Quinney, involved a U.S. Secret Service investigation for the counterfeiting of American currency. Agents from the Secret Service arrived at the Defendant’s residence and obtained consent to search the Defendant’s bedroom. Agents discovered a printer which they believe was used for counterfeiting. The Defendant, however, admitted to passing phony currency, but not actually manufacturing counterfeit dollars.

After later interviewing two witnesses who claimed the Defendant actually had manufactured counterfeit money, the agents returned to the Defendant’s residence without a search warrant. The Defendant was not home at the time. The man’s stepfather, who was home when the agents arrived, claims the agents did not request his permission, but rather announced their presence and that they were seizing the printer.

In support of denying the Defense’s motion to suppress, the Prosecution argued the “Inevitable Discovery” doctrine applied, making the warrantless search and seizure legal. The Inevitable Discovery doctrine states “if the Prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means…, then the deterrence rational has so little basis that the evidence should be received.” In U.S. v. Alexander, the doctrine was applied where police, with a proper search warrant, arrested the defendant in his home and obtained an admission from the defendant of where contraband had been hidden, prior to reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defense moved to suppress the evidence on the basis of an illegally obtained confession leading to the discovery of evidence, as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court in Alexander held that because the police had a proper search warrant, they would have inevitably discovered the contraband when exercising the warrant, regardless of whether the confession had been given.

In Quinney, the agents failed to obtain a proper search warrant despite having probable cause to do so. The Court therefore held the Inevitable Discovery doctrine did not apply, as the agents were instead trying to circumvent the warrant requirement for whatever reason. The Court cautioned that a finding in the contrary could lead to an elimination of search warrant protections. The evidence was therefore suppressed and the case remanded for trial accordingly.

Suppression of Evidence

In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution builds their case with evidence; some evidence stronger than other. There are rules regarding evidence, both State and Federal, which govern what evidence is admissible and what is not. Often, some or all of the evidence the prosecution wishes to use was obtained illegally, either by police or third party. An experienced criminal defense attorney is an expert in the field of evidence. Upon reviewing a defendant’s case, a criminal defense attorney will determine if some of the evidence can and should be suppressed, and will take the appropriate actions to do so.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff via phone at (215) 563-9800 or e-mail Marc@nefflawoffices.com for a confidential consultation.