CdwJava
Senior Member
Inevitable discovery might be argued, but it is not usually made when there is a knowingly bad search as this one would seem to be. If they did NOT "know" the warrantless search was bad, they probably should have. I know I would not want to argue an exigency here.carl
would not your argument be discounted due to the fact that there was proper cause for a warrant (dog sniff) and that would have allowed the eventual discovery of the drugs?
If "inevitable discovery" was freely applied when a lawful method was available, then there would be no reason to ever obtain a warrant.
If they had left it at the scene and watched it drive away after a drug sniff, perhaps they could have. But, the defense would argue that they allowed him to do that in order to circumvent the warrant requirement and many judges do not like the cops playing fast and loose.The police could effectively sit on the car and if the owner attempted to drive it away while they warrant was being sought then could search due to the fact the exigency was then present again, yes?
- Carl