Opinion ID: 145463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine is Inapplicable

Text: The government argues in the alternative that the inevitable discovery doctrine prevents suppression of the evidence. The doctrine of inevitable discovery allows admission of unlawfully obtained evidence if the government can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). To establish inevitable discovery, the government must show that the evidence would have been acquired lawfully through an independent source absent the government misconduct. Id. at 448, 104 S.Ct. 2501. The government claims that it would have obtained the files suppressed by the District Court through use of a Department of Justice or grand jury subpoena. It points out that it had already used a subpoena to inspect some of the defendant's records. It asserts that it resorted to search warrants to diminish the risk that, if it subpoenaed the files, the defendant might either decline to produce or alter the subpoenaed files. Complications can readily arise from use of a subpoena. As the Second Circuit stated in United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671, 676 (2d Cir.1988): The mere fact that the government serves a subpoena, however, does not mean that it will obtain the documents it requests. A subpoena can be invalid for a variety of reasons, as when it is unduly burdensome, when it violates the right against self-incrimination, or when it calls for privileged documents. Moreover, we can deplore but not ignore the possibility that the recipient of a subpoena may falsely claim to have lost or destroyed the documents called for, or may even deliberately conceal or destroy them after service of the subpoena. Accord Ctr. Art Galleries-Hawaii, Inc. v. United States, 875 F.2d 747, 754-55 (9th Cir.1989) (following Roberts). [9] The government, citing United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557 (6th Cir.2002), United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.1999), and United States v. Stamper, 91 Fed.Appx. 445 (6th Cir.2004) (unpublished disposition), [10] contends that the Sixth Circuit takes a different, and less demanding, approach to the inevitable discovery exception. This Court has held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applies when the government can demonstrate either the existence of an independent, untainted investigation that inevitably would have uncovered the same evidence or other compelling facts establishing that the disputed evidence inevitably would have been discovered. United States v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 494, 499 (6th Cir.1995) (emphasis added). In Ford, this Court stated: The government can satisfy its burden by showing that routine procedures that police would have used regardless of the illegal search would have resulted in the discovery of the disputed evidence. 184 F.3d at 577. Though some speculation as to how events would have unfolded, absent an illegal search, may be necessary, we must keep speculation at a minimum by focusing on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment. Id. (quotation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d at 574. A court assesses the likelihood that routine procedures would have led inevitably to acquisition of the evidence as of the time of the unlawful search. United States v. Alexander, 540 F.3d 494, 502 (6th Cir.2008) (holding that a court is to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred). The record in this case shows that the government had used third party subpoenas during its investigation before seeking the warrants, and the government represented that it had reason to believe that if it continued to do so, at least regarding Dr. Lazar's records, he would likely attempt to alter those records. [Dist. Ct. Doc. 153, at 17]. That concern appears to have prompted the government to get the search warrants. The record does not show that the government, at the time it obtained the warrants, concurrently contemplated issuing subpoenas for any records in Dr. Lazar's possession. The government's brief talks a good bit about how common subpoenas are in health care fraud and other white collar investigations. The government, however, presents no evidence establishing that it likely would have sought to acquire Dr. Lazar's records by subpoena, much less procured them in the same condition and as promptly as by seizing them with a warrant. Even if the government need not show that it would likely have obtained the records as quickly and completely with a subpoena, it must at least show that it was ready to obtain them in that manner if, for any reason, it could not have done soor would have chosen not to do sowith a search warrant. See Roberts, 852 F.2d at 676. As the Second Circuit stated in United States v. Eng, 971 F.2d 854, 860-61 (2d Cir.1992): In view of the need to prevent the inevitable discovery exception from swallowing the exclusionary rule, special care is required on the part of a district court when the government relies on the subpoena power. While we decline to draw a bright line, it is essential that there be a substantial degree of directness in the government's chain of discovery argument, rather than a hypothesized leapfrogging from one subpoena recipient to the next until the piece of evidence is reached. Further, the government must show that both issuance of the subpoena, and a response to the subpoena producing the evidence in question, were inevitable. Particular care is appropriate where, as here, subpoenas are issued after or at the time of the unlawful search, an issue that Roberts did not present. We share the Ninth Circuit's view that subpoenas must not serve as an after the fact insurance policy to validate an unlawful search under the inevitable discovery doctrine. See Center Art Galleries-Hawaii, 875 F.2d at 755. Most simply put, here, as in Ford, the record does not substantiate the government's claim that it was hot on the trail of the disputed evidence. The government has not carried its burden of proving the inevitability of discovery. 184 F.3d at 578. The government asks us, in effect, to find that discovery i.e., acquisitionof the suppressed evidence was inevitable simply because the law allows subpoenas to issue. Were we, or any court, to accept this contention, the mere possibility that a subpoena could or might issue would always trump suppression. We conclude, accordingly, that the government did not meet its burden of showing that, despite the partial invalidity of the warrants, retrieval of the unconstitutionally seized set of patient files and records was inevitable, whether by means of a subpoena or otherwise.