Court Opinion

ID: 9754605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:07:27.02867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:55.677427
License: Public Domain

ALEXANDER, J.,
concurring.
[¶ 37] I concur that we must vacate the denial of the motion to suppress. I write separately because I do not concur in the Court’s opinion that probable cause to search was not sufficiently established because the information obtained through the confidential informant was not suffi*286ciently corroborated. I concur with the probable cause and corroboration analysis stated by the Chief Justice in dissent.
[¶ 38] Although probable cause to search was sufficiently established without reb-anee on evidence obtained in the illegal entry, I would vacate because the State failed to meet its burden to estabbsh that discovery of the illegally seized evidence was inevitable. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (noting that the prosecution has the burden to prove inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence).
[¶ 39] The Maine Constitution protects Maine people from illegal home invasions and searches and from seizures of evidence from homes that have been entered illegally. The Maine Constitution states:
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without a special designation of the place to be searched, and the person or the thing to be seized, nor without probable cause — supported by oath or affirmation.
ME. CONST., art. I, § 5.
[¶ 40] The protections of article I, section 5, and the concurrent protections of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, cannot be easily circumvented by illegally seizing evidence then asserting that its discovery, by legal means, was “inevitable.” Our constitutional protections for person and home can be avoided only for special, narrowly construed purposes, and then, only when justified by a high quality of evidence. As the Second Circuit recently observed: “the inevitable discovery doctrine is available only where there is a high level of confidence that each of the contingencies required for the discovery of the disputed evidence would in fact have occurred.” United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2nd Cir.2006).
[¶ 41] In this case, the police and the prosecutor, at approximately 11:20 A.M., commenced the process to obtain a warrant to search the Rabons’ home. A half-hour later, without a warrant, five officers appeared at the Rabons’ home to “secure the premises.” Immediately, and for reasons that are not clear, the police knocked on the door. Looking through a window and seeing one defendant express shock at the police presence, the police entered through an unlocked door, chased Sharon Rabón through the apartment, and apprehended her after kicking open a bathroom door. Charles Rabón was arrested in another room where he was found with white powder and a digital scale. After the arrest, the Rabons were handcuffed. The apartment was searched, and photos were taken. The police did not obtain a warrant to search the apartment until five hours later.
[¶ 42] The Superior Court correctly analyzed the law regarding warrantless searches. It observed that: “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable and it is the State’s burden to prove any exception to the warrant requirement.” The court further observed that: “In order for a warrantless entry to be legal, there must be both probable cause and exigent circumstances.” The court then found that the exigent circumstances alleged in this case — purported concern that evidence might be destroyed — “was created by the police going to the residence and knocking on the door.” The court then concluded that this justification was “not a sufficient basis for a warrantless entry.” After citing to a decision, which noted that exigencies of law enforcement’s own creation do not justify warrantless searches, the court found as a fact that: “[U]nder the circum*287stances of this case the entry by police was illegal.” The evidence in the record amply supports the court’s finding of an illegal entry.
[¶ 43] Despite concluding that the entry was illegal, the court declined to suppress the evidence seized in the apartment because it applied the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. By doing this, the court erred because it did not impose upon the State the heavy burden that our Constitution requires to justify an otherwise illegal seizure of evidence.
[¶ 44] The First Circuit, in a case originating in Lewiston, outlined a three-step analytical framework for examination of inevitable discovery claims, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof on each point:
In evaluating inevitable discovery claims, we ask three questions: first, whether the legal means by which the evidence would have been discovered was truly independent; second, whether the use of the legal means would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence; and third, whether applying the inevitable discovery rule would either provide an incentive for police misconduct or significantly weaken constitutional protections.
United States v. Almeida, 434 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir.2006); see also United States v. Pardue, 385 F.3d 101, 106 (1st Cir.2004).
[¶45] We have indicated that evidence may be admitted pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine if the prosecution proves two criteria: first, the information in the application for the search warrant that is independent of illegally obtained information must be sufficient to provide probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant, and, second, the independent information would have inevitably led to discovery of the evidence through lawful means. State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019-20 (Me.1990).
[¶ 46] Whether we apply the First Circuit’s three-step analysis or our two-step analysis, the first two steps of either analysis are similar and hold the keys to this case. The third step of the First Circuit’s analysis is an important reminder of the significance of the constitutional protections at issue and the caution with which the inevitable discovery doctrine must be applied.
[¶ 47] I concur with the Chief Justice that the record supports the trial court’s finding regarding the first element of the inevitable discovery doctrine. The information supporting the issuance of the warrant, independent of the information derived from the warrantless entry, demonstrates sufficient probable cause to justify issuing a warrant. In this analysis, it is notable that the five-hour delay in issuing the warrant demonstrates that the District Court carefully and deliberately considered the warrant request. That careful and deliberate consideration suggests that the District Court viewed the question as close, and that its decision to issue the warrant may have been influenced by the information derived from the warrantless search of the apartment. However, respecting our deferential standard of review, there is sufficient support for the Superior Court’s finding that the “independence” element necessary to support the inevitable discovery doctrine has been demonstrated.
[¶ 48] There is insufficient evidence, however, to support the second element that “use of the legal means would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence.” Almeida, 434 F.3d at 28; Storer, 583 A.2d at 1019-20. Pursuant to Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, the prosecution must prove the elements of the inevitable discovery doctrine by a preponderance of *288the evidence. Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to inevitable discovery cases, however, requires a higher standard of quality of evidence. This derives from the conceptual difficulty of proving inevitability to a probability.11 Thus, while recognizing Nix, the Second Circuit has held that “the government cannot prevail under the inevitable discovery doctrine merely by establishing that it is more probable than not that the disputed evidence would have been obtained without the constitutional violation.” Heath, 455 F.3d at 58-59 & n. 6 (citing United States v. Cabassa, 62 F.3d 470, 472-73 (2nd Cir.1995)). Similarly, the First Circuit requires that inevitability must be demonstrated “to a high degree of probability.” Almeida, 434 F.3d at 29; United States v. Rogers, 102 F.3d 641, 646 (1st Cir.1996).
[¶ 49] Heath involved application of the inevitable discovery doctrine when probable cause to support an arrest was discovered seconds or minutes after an arrest without probable cause. 455 F.3d at 53-54. The District Court had suppressed evidence, and the case was presented on the government’s interlocutory appeal. Id. at 54-55. In a divided opinion, the Second Circuit remanded for findings on the inevitability issue. Id. at 62. A concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge Cabranes argued that application of the “high level of confidence” standard was inappropriate for a case involving proof of inevitability relating to discovery of probable cause to arrest. Id. at 63-64. The separate opinion asserted that the higher standard of evidence is “more appropriately limited to those cases in which the police have engaged in a warrantless search of property otherwise unsupported by any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. at 63.
[¶ 50] Judge Cabranes emphasized the importance of application of the higher standard of evidence to closely limit incentives to enter homes without a warrant.
I do not doubt that Cabassa and its progeny set forth a reasonable approach for those circumstances in which the police have entered into a home without a warrant. Indeed, prior cases have indicated that courts view warrantless property searches with suspicion and thus require a showing that the police had taken tangible steps to ensure that they inevitably would have obtained a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate.
M12
[¶ 51] Cabassa, like the instant case, involved a warrantless entry to a home and *289seizure of evidence while other officers were seeking, but had not obtained a warrant. 62 F.3d at 472. Although the draft affidavit supporting the warrant demonstrated probable cause, the court, applying the higher standard of evidence, determined that there was “some room for disagreement” and “a residual possibility” that the magistrate would have declined to issue the warrant.13 Id. at 473-74. Accordingly, the court overturned the District Court’s finding of inevitable discovery and declared the evidence inadmissible. Id. at 474.
[¶ 52] The quality of evidence supporting inevitability of legal discovery of the evidence at the Rabons’ home satisfies neither the Second Circuit’s “high level of confidence” test, nor the First Circuit’s “high degree of probability” test. Instead, the State’s evidence presents a logical inconsistency. If it was essential to send five officers to prevent disappearance of the Rabons or the contraband before a warrant could be obtained, then it cannot be inevitable that the Rabons and the contraband would have been at the apartment five hours later when the warrant was obtained.
[¶ 53] The trial court recognized that it was the State’s obligation to prove inevitably. Other than the conclusion that the discovery of the contraband was inevitable, however, the court made no findings and the State offered no proof regarding inevitability. Despite the evidence that it was necessary to secure the premises before the warrant issued, both the State and the court seem to have presumed that once the Rabons arrived at their apartment, they and the contraband would have remained at the apartment until the authorities had obtained their warrant. Even the facts found by the trial court do not support such a presumption.
[¶ 54] The trial court found that, shortly before noon, five Rumford officers, some in uniform and at least one wearing a protective vest, appeared “at the [Rabons’] residence” in order to “secure the premises pending the issuance of a warrant.” It is quite a stretch to speculate that this heavy police presence would not have been ob*290served at some time over the next five hours, and that the Rabons, observing the police presence, might not have taken some steps to separate themselves from the contraband or from the premises. Even without the observed police presence, it is also a stretch, inconsistent with the “high degree of probability” standard of evidence, to speculate that the Rabons and the contraband, having arrived at the apartment sometime after 7:30 A.M., would “inevitably” have remained there until sometime after 5:00 P.M.
[¶ 55] “Fact-finders must rely on evidence, not speculation, in fact-finding, and we must vacate decisions where fact-finding was unsupported by evidence.” Hannum v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2003 ME 123, ¶ 15 n. 6, 832 A.2d 765, 770. When a party has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the “mere possibility” that a fact might be proved is not enough, and “when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or even if the probabilities are evenly balanced, a defendant is entitled to a judgment.” Merriam v. Wanger, 2000 ME 159, ¶ 8, 757 A.2d 778, 780-81 (quoting Crowe v. Shaw, 2000 ME 136, ¶ 10, 755 A.2d 509, 512).
[¶ 56] The court’s conclusion of inevitability of the legal discovery of this evidence is speculation, unsupported by any evidence in the record. Basically, the court is bootstrapping the fact that the contraband was discovered upon the illegal entry at noon to infer that, but for the illegal entry, the contraband would have remained in the apartment, inevitably, after 5:00 P.M. The strictures imposed by our Constitution to protect persons and their homes from illegal searches cannot be so easily avoided. The contraband in this case was obtained in a search based on a created exigency that the trial court found was an illegal search. The State failed to meet its burden to prove inevitability of discovery by legal means.
SAUFLEY, C.J.,
with whom CLIFFORD, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 57] I must respectfully dissent. The Court’s opinion today, concluding that probable cause for a search cannot be based on information provided solely through a confidential informant without “something more,” operates to restrict the State’s ability to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the State of Maine, and goes beyond the measures necessary to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
[¶ 58] Let us be clear-eyed about the crimes alleged here. The criminal importation of drugs into the State of Maine, and the subsequent sale of those drugs, are activities that are not likely to be undertaken in such a way that the actual crime will be observed by law enforcement or others not involved in the purchase and sale of drugs. Similarly, those involved in the drug trade are not likely to share information on drug activity with law enforcement when such cooperation does not somehow benefit them. The police should be able to rely on corroborated information provided by informants who are close to drug dealers, to aid the State’s efforts to interdict the drug trade.
A. Probable Cause
[¶ 59] Because I agree with the Court that probable cause is required to apply any of the legal theories presented by the State in support of the admission of the evidence at issue, I begin where the Court has ended: with the analysis of probable cause. Also, because we do not need to reach the motion court’s determination that the officers’ entry into the Rabons’ home to “secure” the premises was illegal, I assume that the paragraphs in the affida*291vit that provide facts derived from that illegal search must be stricken.14 Thus, I approach the review of the affidavit in the same way that the Court has, with the offending paragraphs redacted.
[¶ 60] The Court’s probable cause analysis can be summarized as follows. A confidential informant provided the police in the Town of Rumford with substantial information regarding the Rabons’ personal involvement in the importation and subsequent sale of large quantities of cocaine in Maine. Law enforcement officials corroborated almost every aspect of the objective information given to them by the informant related to the Rabons’ fives and activities. However, because the law enforcement officials did not detail the source of the confidential informant’s information, present information independent of the informant, or recount a direct observation of the transportation, packaging, and sale of the cocaine, the Court has concluded that the affidavit in support of the search warrant could not support a probable cause determination. Accordingly, all of the evidence found at the Rabons’ residence during the execution of the warrant, including cocaine, drug paraphernalia, scales, guns, and money, must now be excluded as evidence against them.
[¶ 61] It is my opinion that the Court has, in effect, returned to the long since rejected formulaic approach required in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), by requiring that information regarding criminal activity provided by a confidential informant be supported by independent evidence of criminal activity, or perhaps, detailed information about the informant’s own activities.
[¶ 62] The Court, properly citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); State v. Wright, 2006 ME 13, ¶ 8, 890 A.2d 703, 705; and State v. Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ¶ 20, 796 A.2d 50, 56, recognizes the appropriate standards for evaluating an affidavit in support of probable cause for a warrant. The Court also acknowledges that the informant before us provided detailed information that was corroborated by the police, and that the seminal United States Supreme Court case on informants, Gates, involved an anonymous written tip, through which the stark facts of the defendant’s travel to and from Florida was sufficient to corroborate the informant’s other information.
[¶ 63] Nonetheless, the Court declares that the affidavit before us is lacking. It does so by parsing through the affidavit and indicating those areas where more information would have been desirable. It requires more information about the informant, even though the informant in Gates was completely anonymous. It declares that the Rabons’ return from Florida was not “contextually suspicious,” and ultimately determines that although the investiga*292tion was promising, “something more” was needed.
[¶ 64] In so doing, the Court effectively abandons the “totality of the circumstances” test and “positive reading” requirement we have adopted, based on opinions of the United States Supreme Court. See Wright, 2006 ME 13, ¶ 8, 890 A.2d at 705; State v. Knowlton, 489 A.2d 529, 531-33 (Me.1985) (adopting the Supreme Court’s holding in Gates and requiring a positive reading of affidavits); see also Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984) (per curiam) (rejecting “grudging” or “negative” readings of search warrants); Gates, 462 U.S. at 230-32, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (adopting the totality of the circumstances test). In its place, the Court substitutes an inflexible requirement that any affidavit in support of a warrant that relies on a confidential informant must contain either detailed information regarding the informant’s personal involvement with the subject of the investigation or evidence of criminal activity independent of that supplied by the confidential informant. Neither we nor the United States Supreme Court demand such a rigid or hyper-technical review of an affidavit in support of probable cause. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 232-35, 103 S.Ct. 2317.
[¶ 65] As the Court has acknowledged, there is a substantial body of law directed at the question of the reasonableness of searches that are based upon information provided by confidential informants. We should begin our analysis with the application of common sense rather than the “hyper-technical parsing” of a document characteristic of a lawyer’s or judge’s training and experience. See id. at 231, 235-36, 103 S.Ct. 2317. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that we should avoid hard and fast rules, such as this Court’s apparent new rule requiring information on the confidential informant’s basis of knowledge or evidence of criminal activity independent of that provided by the confidential informant. Instead, in our reviews, we should encourage motion courts to rely on “factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons rely], not legal [technicalities].” Id. at 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)); see also State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 670 (Me.1996).
[¶ 66] The Supreme Court’s opinions in Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), and Gates demonstrate that an informant’s information can be sufficiently corroborated to justify a stop or search when the informant identifies the vehicle that may be used in a crime, those who may use the vehicle, and the future itinerary of the vehicle. See White, 496 U.S. at 331-32, 110 S.Ct. 2412; Gates, 462 U.S. at 244-45, 103 S.Ct. 2317. White and Gates support a motion court’s inference that if an informant is shown to be right about some things such as identity, vehicle, timing, and route of travel, the informant “ ‘is more probably right about other facts,’ ” including the claim that the participants in the trip are engaged in criminal activity. Gates, 462 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 427, 89 S.Ct. 584). Beyond the corroboration of an informant’s facts, the United States Supreme Court does not require that a warrant affidavit include independent evidence of criminal activity or evidence on the informant’s personal activities to support a finding of probable cause. Nor should we. See State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 9, 708 A.2d 1014, 1017 (stating that we are bound by principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in matters of federal constitutional law).
*293[¶ 67] The purpose of a search warrant is not to prove the existence of criminal activity, but rather to ensure that the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment are effectuated. U.S. CONST, amend. IV; see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001). In my opinion, the affidavit at issue contains more than sufficient information to provide probable cause to issue the warrant and to thereby assure the reasonableness of the search. Put another way, it is difficult to determine how the following information, properly catalogued and presented to a magistrate, would make a search of the Rabons’ residence unreasonable.
[¶ 68] At the risk of repetition, I summarize the affidavit. The confidential informant, referred to by the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency as a cooperating defendant, CD, was known to the police and was on bail from a non-drug related crime. CD contacted the Rumford Police with information about the drug-running activities of “Chuck” Rabón and his wife, Sharon. He told them where the Rabons live, that Chuck drives to Florida three or four times a year to pick up approximately two kilograms of cocaine, and that he returns with the cocaine to Rumford for distribution. CD gave the police specific information about where Chuck works and indicated that the cocaine is distributed at those places of business. The police corroborated the residential information provided by CD. The police also confirmed CD’s information regarding local law enforcement’s belief that drug sales were occurring at Chuck Rabon’s places of business.
[¶ 69] CD demonstrated substantial knowledge of Charles Rabon’s activities when he reported that Rabón had recently been summonsed by the Rumford police for an excessive noise violation. This information was also confirmed independently. CD further indicated that, at the time Rabón had been summonsed by the Rum-ford police, he was in actual possession of a large quantity of cocaine. Because Rabón was not searched at the time, this cocaine was not discovered.
[¶ 70] CD eventually gave the police information about the Rabons’ latest trip to Florida, and the police confirmed that the Rabons’ van, previously seen regularly in their driveway, was now gone. CD told the police the day that the Rabons would arrive back in Maine "with the cocaine. The police alerted other law enforcement and confirmed the arrival of the Rabons back at their Rumford residence, as predicted by CD. On the very date that the Rabons returned to Maine, the police sought a warrant to search the home, thereby proposing to search the home immediately upon the Rabons’ arrival when it was most likely that the cocaine would still be at their house.
[¶ 71] Any magistrate receiving the information above would be required to apply the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court to determine whether “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime” would be found at the Rabons’ residence on the date in question. Wright, 2006 ME 13, ¶ 8, 890 A.2d at 705 (quoting Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ¶ 20, 796 A.2d at 56); see Dignoti, 682 A.2d at 670.
[¶ 72] A magistrate reviewing the affidavit would have information demonstrating that the authorities were able to independently confirm much of what was given to them by the confidential informant. This information regarded the Rabons’ identities and activities, including their real names, their residence, their vehicle, their travels, and when they were and were not present. The information also related to places where cocaine trafficking was known to be occurring “on a regular ba*294sis.” This information was sufficient to establish the confidential informant’s bona fides. The extent, detail, and corroborated nature of the information provided by CD would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there was a “fair probability” that cocaine would be found in the Rabons’ home on the date of the search.
[¶ 73] The Court’s analysis, resulting in the opposite conclusion, bears similarity to the analysis of an affidavit addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Upton. In Upton, a search warrant for the suspect’s motor home was issued based on an informant’s statements that the motor home was full of stolen goods, that the suspect intended to move the motor home because the police had recently raided the hotel room of the suspect’s stolen goods supplier, that the informant had seen the stolen goods, and that the informant was the suspect’s ex-girlfriend and wanted “to burn him.” 466 U.S. at 729, 104 S.Ct. 2085. The suspect was able to give a description of the stolen goods that matched items taken in recent burglaries, although the informant did not “specifically state that she saw [the goods] in the motor home.” Id. at 731, 733, 104 S.Ct. 2085. The only corroborated facts in the warrant affidavit were the location of the motor home, the informant’s knowledge of the raid, and the informant’s knowledge of the name of the suspect and his girlfriend. Id. at 731, 104 S.Ct. 2085. In holding that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reasoned that each corroborated fact in the affidavit related to innocent, nonsuspicious conduct, or was related to a public event. Id. at 731-32, 104 S.Ct. 2085. In its own analysis, the United States Supreme Court noted that the Massachusetts court had “insisted on judging bits and pieces of information in isolation,” rather than considering the affidavit in its entirety. Id. at 732, 104 S.Ct. 2085. The Supreme Court held that probable cause existed for the warrant because, although “[n]o single piece of evidence [was] conclusive[,] ... the pieces fit neatly together and, so viewed, supported] the Magistrate’s determination.” Id. at 733, 104 S.Ct. 2085.
[¶ 74] Until now, we have never held that stops and searches based on information provided by a confidential informant, when officers have confirmed the credibility of that informant with corroborating information, cannot be justified unless the authorities also present “something more.” Nor has the United States Supreme Court ever required “something more” for a search based on such information. I would affirm the motion court’s conclusion that the affidavit, once redacted, would have issued upon sufficient probable cause.
B. Inevitable Discovery
[¶ 75] Because I would conclude that the affidavit, as redacted, provided sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, I go on to address the motion court’s determination that the evidence would have been “inevitably discovered.”
[¶ 76] The motion court, having declared the officers’ original entry into the Rabons’ home illegal, treated the search as a war-rantless search. It therefore moved on to consider whether any exception to the warrant requirement existed. The motion court ultimately determined that the inevitable discovery exception provided a basis for a lawful search.
[¶ 77] The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows the use of evidence that has been obtained as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment when that evidence “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); see State v. *295Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019-20 (Me.1990). Evidence is admitted pursuant to the inevitable discovery rule only if: (1) the evidence could also be gained from information that is truly independent of illegally obtained information, and (2) the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by such lawful means. See Storer, 583 A.2d at 1019-20.15
[¶ 78] The inevitable discovery exception has developed as a logical counterpart to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which reaches out to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of earlier illegal action on the part of law enforcement. Nix, 467 U.S. at 441, 104 S.Ct. 2501. Because one of the primary purposes of the judicially-created exclusionary rule, and its extension through the suppression of evidence gained as the “fruit” of other illegally obtained evidence, has been to deter police misconduct, exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule have been recognized in instances where separate, legitimate investigatory tools would inevitably have turned up the evidence at issue. Id. at 442-43, 104 S.Ct. 2501. The end result of the application of the inevitable discovery rule is to ensure that “the prosecution is not put in a worse position simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.” Id. at 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501.
[¶ 79] We recently applied the inevitable discovery doctrine in a situation where a victim’s body was recovered as a result of a custodial interrogation that we presumed to be illegal for purposes of the inevitable discovery analysis.16 See State v. St. Yves, 2000 ME 97, ¶ 17, 751 A.2d 1018, 1022-23. There, the police had lawfully and independently gathered the following information prior to any alleged misconduct: (1) the defendant’s wife had recently given birth to an infant; (2) the defendant had attempted to obtain food stamps for himself, the infant, and his other daughter, but the infant was nowhere to be seen, and the defendant appeared confused and unkempt; (3) the elder daughter appeared uncared for when the police lawfully entered the defendant’s trailer to arrest the defendant’s wife; (4) a caseworker had attempted to contact the parents on a *296number of occasions at their trailer and had heard a child inside, though no adult answered the door; (5) when the police arrived to arrest the defendant’s wife, the trailer was cold and filled with refuse, dog feces, and urine; and (6) the defendant and his wife provided conflicting explanations to the police as to the whereabouts of the infant and refused to tell them where the infant could be located. Id. ¶ 19, 751 A.2d at 1023.
[¶ 80] Taking this information into account, we held that the victim’s body would inevitably have been discovered because, if the police had not discovered the victim’s body as a result of the interrogation, they would have checked the defendant’s wife’s story and found that the victim was not with her grandparents. Id. ¶¶ 20-22, 751 A.2d at 1023-24. We therefore concluded that, even without the information obtained by interrogating the defendant, the police would have been able to establish probable cause for a warrant to search the defendant’s trailer and, after seeking and obtaining a warrant, inevitably would have discovered the victim’s body. Id. We concluded, “ ‘fairness can be assured by placing the State and the accused in the same positions they would have been in had the impermissible conduct not taken place,’ and, therefore, the court did not err in determining that the inevitable discovery doctrine saved the evidence from suppression.” Id. ¶ 22, 751 A.2d at 1024 (citation omitted) (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 447, 104 S.Ct. 2501).
[¶ 81] In contrast to the search conducted in St. Yves, here the challenged evidence was not obtained through an illegal interrogation, and the State did obtain a warrant to search the premises. The warrant, however, was tainted by the inclusion of evidence gained through the initial presumed-illegal entry into the Rabons’ residence. Thus, the analysis is similar to that used in St. Yves, but turns on whether the warrant would have issued without the offending paragraphs.17
[¶ 82] As discussed above, I would conclude that the warrant would properly have issued even if the officers had not gone first to the Rabons’ home, and even if the paragraphs in the affidavit cataloguing the evidence found in that initial entry had not been added to the affidavit.
[¶ 83] Thus, the remaining question presented is whether the evidence would inevitably have been discovered when the warrant was issued, several hours after the Rabons’ home was secured, which we presume was an illegal act.
[¶ 84]. After hearing the evidence, the motion court found that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered after the search warrant was obtained. In reaching this conclusion, the court heard the evidence presented before it, heard the arguments for both sides, and reviewed the documentary evidence presented. The court could reasonably have concluded that, in the absence of the officers’ action in entering the Rabons’ residence, the evidence inevitably would have remained at the residence until the search warrant was *297obtained late in the afternoon. This conclusion could be based on reasonable inferences by the court, including the fact that the Rabons had traveled a considerable distance in a relatively short time and that they would have needed some time to organize and to prepare the cocaine before distributing it for resale.
[¶ 85] Moreover, the warrant was issued and executed approximately four-and-one-half hours after the officers’ initial entry. Had the police not secured the Rabons’ home prior to seeking the warrant, it is very likely that, based on the urgency of the situation, both the police and the court would have acted upon the warrant request much more quickly. Thus, the motion court could infer that it was unlikely that the Rabons and/or the cocaine would have been gone from the apartment and therefore not subject to discovery when the warrant was ultimately obtained. See United States v. Eng, 971 F.2d 854, 859 (2d Cir.1992) (stating that proof of inevitability is bolstered by a “close temporal relationship ... between what was known and what had occurred prior to the government misconduct and the allegedly inevitable discovery of the evidence”); see also Nix, 467 U.S. at 449, 104 S.Ct. 2501 (noting that, absent the suspect’s confession, the body would have been discovered within five hours); United States v. Whitehorn, 829 F.2d 1225, 1228, 1232 (2d Cir.1987) (holding that the inevitability exception applied to an apartment search despite the six-hour delay between the initial search and the issuing of the search warrant).
C. Independent Source
[¶ 86] The same results are obtained if we apply the “independent source” exception to these facts. The independent source exception permits the admission of evidence that was obtained independently through both illegal and legal sources. Storer, 583 A.2d at 1019. As the majority acknowledges today, if the magistrate had had probable cause to issue the warrant without the allegedly unlawfully-obtained information, the independent source exception would have allowed the admission of the evidence. Because I would conclude that the magistrate would have had sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant on the redacted facts in the affidavit, I would also conclude that the independent source exception results in the admissibility of the evidence.
[¶87] Accordingly, I would affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the Rabons’ motion to suppress.

. The conceptual difficulty of applying the preponderance of the evidence, or “more likely than not” standard to proof of inevitability, has been addressed as follows:
There are, of course, semantic problems in using the preponderance of the evidence standard to prove inevitability. To say that more probably than not event “X” would have occurred is to say only that there is a 50% + chance that "X” would have occurred. Clearly, the doctrine of inevitable discovery requires something more where the discovery is based upon the expected issuance of a warrant. Otherwise, it would result in illegally seized evidence being received when there was a 49% chance that a warrant would not have issued or would not have issued in a timely fashion, hardly a showing of inevitability. Given the present facts, we need not probe further into the semantic puzzle other than to note the difference between proving by a preponderance that something would have happened and proving by a preponderance that something would inevitably have happened.
United States v. Cabassa, 62 F.3d 470, 474 (2nd Cir.1995).

. To support his point that the higher standard of evidence should apply, but only to inevitability questions arising from warrant-less entry of homes, Judge Cabranes cited a number of other opinions applying the higher standard to warrantless entry cases:
*289Courts require these detailed showings of "each of the contingencies” involved, see [United States v.] Lavan, 10 F.Supp.2d [377,] 389 [ (S.D.N.Y.1998)], precisely because they do not wish to encourage officers to "obviate” or “nullifly]” the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement by baldly asserting that they inevitably would have had the probable cause needed to obtain a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 320 (9th Cir.1995) ("|T]o excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cause and could have obtained a warrant would completely obviate the warrant requirement.”); United States v. Brown, 64 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th Cir.1995) ("To say that a warrant is required for a search is to say that the police must get judicial approval before acting. Yet if probable cause means that discovery is inevitable, then the prior approval requirement has been nullified.”); United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196, 1205 (5th Cir.1985) ("When the police forego legal means of investigation simply in order to obtain evidence in violation of a suspect’s constitutional rights, the need to deter is paramount and requires application of the exclusionary rule.”); cf. United States v. Eng, 971 F.2d 854, 860 (2d Cir.1992) (noting that "special care is required on the part of a district court when the government relies on the subpoena power” in light of "the need to prevent the inevitable discovery exception from swallowing the exclusionary rule”).
United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 64 (2nd Cir.2006).

. No warrant issued in Cabassa, because, after the illegal entry, the DEA agents told Cabassa that he should cooperate as a warrant was about to issue, thereby obtaining Cabassa’s consent to a search and subsequently halting the warrant preparation process. 62 F.3d at 472.

. Because we have not undertaken an analysis of the motion court's conclusion regarding the legality of the officers’ entry to secure the residence, nothing herein should be understood to opine on that issue. I note, however, that the officers’ actions may have been in reliance on the MAINE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S MANUAL, which infers that officers, in anticipation of a warrant, are justified in securing a residence from the inside and from the outside. JOHN N. FERDI-CO, MAINE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S MANUAL 8-19 (2003-2005 ed.). The MANUAL interprets Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984), and Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001), to allow an internal securing of premises in anticipation of a warrant in the same circumstances when a perimeter stakeout is justified. FERDICO at 8-19. We do not address the legality of these methods in the present case.

. A third aspect of the inevitable discovery exception has been identified by the First Circuit, which I conclude is embedded in the first two Storer elements. See United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 744 (1st Cir.1986). That aspect addresses whether the application of the inevitable discovery rule in any particular case before the court would encourage police misconduct or reduce the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment. Id. Although the court in Silvestri explicitly expressed concern about the impact of the inevitable discovery rule on further police misconduct, it focused its analysis "on the questions of independence and inevitability.” Id. at 746. Therefore, by its very application, the two-part independence and inevitability analysis assures that police misconduct will not be furthered. As the United States Supreme Court has observed:
A police officer who is faced with the opportunity to obtain evidence illegally will rarely, if ever, be in a position to calculate whether the evidence sought would inevitably be discovered.... On the other hand, when an officer is aware that the evidence will inevitably be discovered, he will try to avoid engaging in any questionable practice. In that situation, there will be little to gain from taking any dubious shortcuts to obtain the evidence. Significant disincentives to obtaining evidence illegally — including the possibility of departmental discipline and civil liability — also lessen the likelihood that the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception will promote police misconduct.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 445-46, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (quotation marks omitted).

. In that case, we did not independently review the legality of the interrogation because we determined that the police would have inevitably found the victim’s body. State v. St. Yves, 2000 ME 97, ¶ 17, 751 A.2d 1018, 1022-23.

. When the police have, in fact, obtained a warrant, challenges to the search will ordinarily be made in terms of alleged infirmity in the warrant. See, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Wright, 2006 ME 13, ¶¶ 6-7, 890 A.2d at 705; State v. Dickinson, 2005 ME 100, ¶ 10, 881 A.2d 651, 655-56; State v. Lehman, 1999 ME 124, ¶ 1, 736 A.2d 256, 257. If the warrant is determined to be legally infirm, the search will usually be treated as warrantless and the evidence will be suppressed unless there is an exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Finucan, 708 F.2d 838, 841-43 (1st Cir.1983); State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1018-20 (Me.1990).