Final October, I wrote a protracted put up on a brand new Tenth Circuit choice, United States v. Streett, that utilized the inevitable discovery exception to a faulty warrant. My put up, Does the Inevitable Discovery Exception Embody Imagined Revised Makes an attempt to Get Warrants?, argued that the choice was improper and conflicted with Supreme Court docket caselaw.
I’m happy to be taught that an wonderful cert petition was filed yesterday within the case by Counsel of Report Tobias Loss-Eaton of Sidley Austin. Here is the Query Introduced:
Earlier than authorities brokers can search a non-public dwelling, the Fourth Modification typically requires them to acquire a warrant supported by possible trigger. Right here, officers utilized for, obtained, and executed a search warrant primarily based on an affidavit that contained no hyperlink in any respect between petitioner and the deal with they wished to go looking. The courts under agreed, and the federal government conceded, that the warrant didn’t set up possible trigger, so the search was unconstitutional. However the Tenth Circuit nonetheless let the federal government use the ensuing proof as a result of, it reasoned, if the Justice of the Peace had as a substitute denied the warrant software and identified the defects, the federal government probably would have submitted a revised software that might have established possible trigger, and a legitimate warrant would have issued.
The query offered is: Whether or not the inevitable-discovery doctrine applies to save lots of proof obtained by an unconstitutional warrant as a result of, hypothetically, if the Justice of the Peace had denied the warrant software and identified the defects, the federal government might have mounted them and obtained a legitimate warrant.
The Supreme Court docket has not heard a Fourth Modification case in a number of years. And exclusionary rule circumstances are significantly tough, as you by no means know when a slim case would possibly increase greater points that some Justices skeptical of the exclusionary rule would possibly wish to tackle. Nonetheless, this can be a robust petition on a case that’s price following. As at all times, keep tuned.