Opinion ID: 195344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Incentive for Police Misconduct

Text: 43 Finally, Dr. Ford argues that application of the inevitable discovery rule in this case would weaken Fourth Amendment protection and provide an incentive for police misconduct. He points out that the agents did not attempt to secure either a search or an arrest warrant prior to Dr. Ford's receipt of the package. Further, because the agents used a ruse (the water department story) to lure Dr. Ford from his home, it was surely not a surprise for the defendant to have needs related to the inside of the home. Aplt.'s Br. at 26. The government should not be permitted to be indifferent to the warrant requirement for twenty-four hours and rely on a search warrant obtained after agents have engaged in an entirely predictable and manufactured 'protective sweep,' as proof of inevitability. Id. at 27. 44 Although we agree with Dr. Ford that a warrant would have avoided this problem, we cannot agree that applying the inevitable discovery doctrine in this situation would provide an incentive for misconduct. We have found only one case in which a court, after engaging in the Silvestri analysis, refused to apply the inevitable discovery rule due to the incentive for police misconduct. United States v. Rullo, 748 F.Supp. 36 (D.Mass.1990). In Rullo, the police used excessive physical force to compel a suspect to disclose the location of a gun. The court held that, although the gun would have been inevitability discovered through a separate search, the incentive for police misconduct was so great that the inevitable discovery rule could not apply. The present case obviously does not involve such blatant police misconduct. 45 In fact, as the district court stated, it is dubious whether the police involved in this case behaved improperly at all. Aplt.'s App. at 30. A police officer has the right to remain with a suspect at all times. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 6-7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816-817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). In Chrisman, a student was detained outside of his dormitory. The student requested that he be allowed to return to his room to obtain identification. He was told that the police officer would accompany him if he should return to his room. The student consented. While standing in the doorway of the room, the police officer saw, in plain view, marijuana seeds and a pipe. The Court held that the police officer properly accompanied [the student] to his room, and that his presence in the room was lawful. Id. at 7, 102 S.Ct. at 817. See also United States v. Hidalgo, 747 F.Supp. 818 (D.Mass.1990) (holding that there was no incentive for police misconduct when the search of the premises took place out of a concern for the safety of the police officers involved). 46 In light of these decisions, we do not believe that applying the inevitable discovery doctrine in the present case provides an incentive for police misconduct. The police had the right to accompany Dr. Ford when he reentered the house. Further, the district court found that the protective sweep was motivated by a concern of the police officers to protect themselves. Aplt.'s App. at 18-19. We therefore hold that a reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court's application of the inevitable discovery rule. The denial of the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.