Opinion ID: 3166089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Active Pursuit of Alternate Means of Discovery

Text: The district court was also correct in concluding that the government met the final prong of the inevitable discovery rule. The agents were already in the same 17 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 18 of 18 room as the safe, and it is clear from Agent Reed’s testimony that he only delayed breaking into the safe in the hope that Harris would divulge the combination. Thus, efforts to access the safe lawfully were sufficiently underway by the time that Harris opened the safe as a result of the unlawful portion of his interrogation. See Jefferson, 382 F.3d at 1296; cf. United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1048 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that police are sufficiently “actively pursuing” evidence in a witness’s possession when they have evidence that would have led to the witness’s discovery had the witness not first been discovered through unlawful means).5 The government met its burden under the inevitable discovery rule, and the district court did not err by denying Harris’s motion to suppress, so far as he sought exclusion of the physical evidence discovered at his residence. See Jefferson, 382 F.3d at 1296. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Harris’s motion to suppress as to the firearms and affirm Harris’s conviction and sentence. 6 AFFIRMED. 5 This Court has adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 6 Harris’s reply brief argues that the involvement of the ATF and Agent Reed were outside the scope of the search condition, and that the GBI agents unlawfully prolonged the search so that Agent Reed could arrive and participate. However, this Court does not review claims raised for the first time in the reply brief and thus will not address these final arguments. See United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999). 18