Opinion ID: 2076741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The First Bag of Marijuana (Bag 1)

Text: In its challenge to the suppression of Bag 1, the State argues that the Superior Court committed clear error in finding that Warden Annis seized that bag from within the curtilage of the Storers' house. Because the search warrant in any event would not be invalidated by the illegality of the seizure of Bag 1, we need not review the court's factual finding of the extent of the Storers' curtilage. Instead, the dispositive question is whether Bag 1 should be admitted on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional ... provision had taken place. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 434, 104 S.Ct. at 2504. The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule derives from the independent source doctrine, but it differs in that the question is not whether the police did in fact acquire certain evidence by reliance upon an untainted source but instead whether evidence found because of a Fourth Amendment violation would inevitably have been discovered lawfully. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 11.4(a), at 378 (2d ed. 1987); see also Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. at 539, 108 S.Ct. at 2534 ([t]he inevitable discovery doctrine ... is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered (emphasis in original)). The purpose of the two exceptions to the exclusionary rule are exactly the same: to prevent an earlier act that violated a constitutional right from undermining an investigation based on other, legal sources of information. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444, 104 S.Ct. at 2509. In order for the inevitable discovery exception to apply, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. Id.; see also Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. at 543, 108 S.Ct. at 2536. The record compels a finding that the State has made that showing. Even if Warden Annis could not have legally seized Bag 1 without a warrant, he did nothing illegal in watching Mrs. Storer from a position plainly outside the curtilage and seeing her deposit Bag 1 away from the house. See United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 304, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1141, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987). With that observation and the knowledge that Bag 2 containing marijuana was thrown minutes later into the woods across the road from the front of the house, the officers conducting the search would have gone directly to Bag 1 once they had the warrant in hand. The warrant authorized them to search the Storers' entire premises, including their outbuildings and curtilage.