Opinion ID: 195344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Decision To Seek A Warrant

Text: 22 Dr. Ford attacks the district court's holdings under each of the three Silvestri questions. First, he argues that the search warrant was not sufficiently independent of the warrantless entry into his home. He argues that while Silvestri held that the warrant process did not have to be ongoing, it is implicit that Silvestri establishes as at least a minimum requirement, the decision to seek a warrant [must] be made prior to the time that the illegal search took place and that the decision in no way be influenced or accelerated by information gained from the illegal search. Aplt.'s Br. at 10. 3 23 Before we address Dr. Ford's arguments, we must bear in mind the appropriate standard of review. The standard of review of an appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress is that the decision will be upheld if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. United States v. McLaughlin, 957 F.2d 12, 16 (1st Cir.1992). We review de novo any questions of law which arise in the course of our analysis. United States v. Yoffe, 775 F.2d 447, 451 (1st Cir.1985). 24 We have carefully reviewed Silvestri and find no language to support Dr. Ford's argument. Indeed, Silvestri rejected a bright line rule in favor of a flexible analysis. 25 [In] [t]he situation where a warrant is obtained after a warrantless search ... the requirement of active pursuit could be viewed as ensuring the independent inevitability of the police decision to seek the search warrant, i.e., to ensure that the evidence turned up in the illegal search did not influence this decision. As a protection of the independence of the warrant, however, this bright-line rule goes too far. 26 Silvestri, 787 F.2d at 745. However, Silvestri did require that probable cause be present prior to the illegal search [to ensure] both independence and inevitability for the prewarrant search situation. Id. at 746. 27 The existence of independent probable cause to search Dr. Ford's home is undisputed. Dr. Ford concedes that it is beyond argument that the agents had probable cause to search Dr. Ford's residence after he returned with the package from the Post Office. Aplt.'s Br. at 10. It is also beyond dispute that the seized evidence would have been (and was) discovered following the authorized search. It is inevitable that the existence of probable cause would find fruition in the issuance of a search warrant. This is bolstered by the fact that there is evidence in the record, relied upon by the district court, that a decision to seek a warrant had been made prior to the warrantless entry. Loftus then asked Ford whether Ford would consent to a search of his house, informing Ford that the search would take place in any case after the officers obtained a warrant. Aplt.'s App. at 17. Thus, we believe that a reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court's finding that the probable cause supporting the search warrant was independent of the warrantless search and that the evidence seized would have been discovered upon the issuance of a warrant.