Joshuaace2
Member
In Illinois I was pulled over leaving a bar one night. After performing pre exit tests the officer asked me to step out and do the FST. I agreed to perform those tests, but when I got out of the car he searched me.
In my front pocket he found a film cannister containing a small amount of marijuana. I then did the FST's. After that I was placed under arrest. Since I had not been drinking I gladly agreed to submit to chemical testing of my blood and urine. (I was absolutely ignorant of DUI laws at that time)
Naturally the blood test revealed more than 0 amount of THC in my blood and I was charged with DUI.
My PD filed a motion to suppress the evidence (the mj, and the bloodtest), as the search of the defendant was not valid under "TERRY v. OHIO".
At the suppression hearing the officer was asked why he searched me? His response was " I search everyone I come in contact with". The Judge interjects and says "You mean you seach them when in light of the circumstances you believe them to be armed".
The officer then says "No, I search everyone I come in contact with".
Here are my questions:
If an unlawful stop invalidates the search, doesn't it stand to reason that an illegal search would invalidate the stop?
I ask because the evidence was not suppressed, rather it was admitted under the "inevitable discovery exception".
My understanding is inevitable discovery would only apply when the Government can show the evidence would have been discovered "through an ongoing, independant investigation, so as to remove the taint of the illegal search"
Would it not be an unusual set of circumstances for this exception to be applied to a "stop and frisk".
The Judge explained it was inevitable the evidence would have been discovered "incident to arrest" anyway.
The defense argued it was the arrest that was inevitable following
the illegal search.
Has anyone ever heard of this exception being applied to an invalid "Terry frisk" ?
Sorry for such a long post, thanks in advance for your feedback.
Roger
In my front pocket he found a film cannister containing a small amount of marijuana. I then did the FST's. After that I was placed under arrest. Since I had not been drinking I gladly agreed to submit to chemical testing of my blood and urine. (I was absolutely ignorant of DUI laws at that time)
Naturally the blood test revealed more than 0 amount of THC in my blood and I was charged with DUI.
My PD filed a motion to suppress the evidence (the mj, and the bloodtest), as the search of the defendant was not valid under "TERRY v. OHIO".
At the suppression hearing the officer was asked why he searched me? His response was " I search everyone I come in contact with". The Judge interjects and says "You mean you seach them when in light of the circumstances you believe them to be armed".
The officer then says "No, I search everyone I come in contact with".
Here are my questions:
If an unlawful stop invalidates the search, doesn't it stand to reason that an illegal search would invalidate the stop?
I ask because the evidence was not suppressed, rather it was admitted under the "inevitable discovery exception".
My understanding is inevitable discovery would only apply when the Government can show the evidence would have been discovered "through an ongoing, independant investigation, so as to remove the taint of the illegal search"
Would it not be an unusual set of circumstances for this exception to be applied to a "stop and frisk".
The Judge explained it was inevitable the evidence would have been discovered "incident to arrest" anyway.
The defense argued it was the arrest that was inevitable following
the illegal search.
Has anyone ever heard of this exception being applied to an invalid "Terry frisk" ?
Sorry for such a long post, thanks in advance for your feedback.
Roger