Opinion ID: 183984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Stabile's Motion to Suppress and the District Court's Decision

Text: On July 1, 2008, Stabile moved to suppress evidence seized from his house on July 24, 2006, arguing (1) that the Government's warrantless seizure of the hard drives for three months without a search warrant was unreasonable, and (2) that pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the state search warrant authorizing search for child pornography was invalid because the DVDs from the desk which formed the alleged probable cause did not actually contain child pornography. In September, 2008, the District Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing. On November 3, 2008, the parties submitted post-hearing briefs. Stabile argued that: (1) Detective Vanadia's search exceeded the scope of the search for financial information authorized by Deetz's consent and the state search warrant; (2) Stabile withdrew Deetz's consent when he got home and therefore, pursuant to Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), the Government waited an unreasonable period of time to secure the state search warrant; and (3) suppression of evidence was required as a result of this unreasonable search. On December 4, 2008, the District Court again heard oral argument. On January 21, 2009, the District Court denied Stabile's motion to suppress. United States v. Stabile , Crim. No. 08-145(SRC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4263 (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2009). The District Court concluded that the search of Stabile's house was a valid consent search, that Stabile could not revoke Deetz's prior consent under Georgia v. Randolph , that the Government's delay in obtaining a state search warrant was not unreasonably long, and that, under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the evidence obtained from the search of the 120 GB hard drive need not be suppressed. On February 3, 2009, Stabile filed a motion for reconsideration in which he argued that, inter alia, the District Court committed legal error by applying the inevitable discovery doctrine rather than the independent source doctrine, and that this error required correction. On March 13, 2009, the District Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its application of the inevitable discovery doctrine and holding that the evidence would also be admissible under the independent source doctrine. United States v. Stabile , Crim. No. 08-145(SRC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20275 (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2009).