Opinion ID: 488849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stone's Testimony

Text: 19 Based on our review of the evidence presented by the government at trial, we find it sufficient to support the district court's ruling (and the government's uncontested assertion) that, prior to the unlawful entry, McMahon informed the law enforcement officers of the number to the beeper in Drosten's possession. Also, Drosten has failed to present any evidence to contradict the government's assertion that the name of the pager company and the name of the subscriber inevitably would have been discovered by using the beeper number. Consequently, the government's use of the beeper serial number to identify Stone is of no significance. 20 In Satterfield, we stated that [u]nder Brookins and Roper, if evidence is obtained by illegal conduct, the illegality can be cured only if the police possessed and were pursuing a lawful means of discovery at the time the illegality occurred. Satterfield, 743 F.2d at 846. In this case, the government possessed information relating to Barrett's identity and address, as well as the beeper number as a direct result of the investigation of Drosten prior to the unlawful entry. Consequently, we find that the government has sufficiently established the element of active pursuit under the inevitable discovery rule. See Brookins, 614 F.2d at 1044-46.