United States v. Timothy Brown, Jr.
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8384, 328 F.3d 352, 2003 WL 2010737 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence obtained during an unconstitutional search is admissible if the government can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have inevitably discovered the evidence through lawful means, such as by obtaining a search warrant for which it had probable cause independent of the illegal search.
Facts:
- Law enforcement agents received an anonymous tip that Timothy Brown, Jr., a fugitive, was residing at an apartment on Lincoln Street.
- Upon arriving at the apartment building, agents witnessed a plastic bag containing crack cocaine being thrown from Brown's apartment window.
- Seconds later, an agent saw an unidentified male holding a gun in the same window.
- Agents then forcibly entered the apartment, arrested Brown, and conducted a protective sweep, discovering two other individuals, more cocaine, and a handgun.
- An agent then sought consent to search from Stephon Lowery, the individual who leased the apartment.
- Lowery informed the agent that he only leased the apartment as a favor to Brown, did not live there, did not possess keys, and that Brown paid the rent.
- Despite this information, Lowery signed a consent-to-search form.
- Based on this consent, agents conducted a full search and seized approximately 143.8 grams of cocaine base, 246.1 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and nearly $5,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Brown, Jr. was prosecuted in the federal district court for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- At trial, Brown filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the Lincoln apartment, arguing the search was conducted pursuant to invalid consent.
- The district court denied Brown's motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted Brown on the charges.
- Brown appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the inevitable discovery doctrine permit the admission of evidence seized during an illegal search based on invalid third-party consent, when law enforcement had sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant prior to and independent of the illegal search?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The inevitable discovery doctrine allows for the admission of evidence seized during an illegal search if the government can establish that the evidence would have ultimately been discovered by lawful means. The court first determined that the consent provided by Stephon Lowery was invalid because he lacked the necessary common authority over the apartment, as he did not have joint access or control. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. To apply this doctrine, the prosecution must establish both that it had probable cause for a warrant and that a chain of events existed that would have led to a warrant independent of the illegal search. Here, the agents had abundant probable cause before the invalid consent search, based on the tip, the drugs thrown from the window, the man seen with a gun, and the items found during the lawful protective sweep. The record showed the agents were acting in good faith by seeking guidance from an AUSA, and had they not mistakenly pursued consent, they would have been instructed to obtain a warrant. Because the agents later secured a warrant based only on the untainted information, it was clear they would have inevitably discovered the evidence legally. The exclusionary rule's purpose is to deter misconduct, not to place the government in a worse position than it would have been in absent the error.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength and scope of the inevitable discovery doctrine as a major exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. The decision clarifies that the doctrine can cure a constitutional violation even when police proceed with a search after receiving information that should have made it clear their basis for the search (third-party consent) was invalid. It emphasizes that as long as an independent, untainted source of probable cause exists, and the police were demonstrably on a path to obtaining a warrant, a subsequent mistake will not necessarily lead to suppression. This provides a significant backstop for law enforcement, allowing courts to admit evidence when an error is seen as procedural rather than a flagrant disregard for constitutional rights.
