inevitable discovery doctrine in Ohio

2026Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is still admissible if the state can prove by a preponderance of the evidence “that the evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a 20. lawful investigation.” State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (1985), syllabus.

2024Nonetheless, I write separately to express my belief that the inevitable discovery doctrine may have authorized the search in this case if the State had preserved that argument before the trial court and presented it to us. {¶40} Pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence that is illegally obtained can be properly admitted in a criminal trial once it is established that the evidence “would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Huffman, 2010-Ohio-5116 , ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Perkins, 18 Ohi

2021Appellant observes that the vehicle search found marijuana, but the officer discovered methamphetamine and suboxone during appellant’s pat-down search. {¶23} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “illegally obtained evidence is properly admitted in a trial court proceeding once it is established that the evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193, 196 , 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985), adopting the rule set forth in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (holding that und

2021Appellant observes that the vehicle search found marijuana, but the officer discovered methamphetamine and suboxone during appellant’s pat-down search. {¶23} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “illegally obtained evidence is properly admitted in a trial court proceeding once it is established that the evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193, 196 , 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985), adopting the rule set forth in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (holding that und

2016See also State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29, 36 , 565 N.E.2d 549 (1991) (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine). {¶40} The inevitable discovery doctrine is appropriately triggered only in those instances where there has been an implementation of police investigative procedures that ultimately would have led to the certain discovery of the same evidence.

2016See also State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29, 36 , 565 N.E.2d 549 (1991) (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine). {¶40} The inevitable discovery doctrine is appropriately triggered only in those instances where there has been an implementation of police investigative procedures that ultimately would have led to the certain discovery of the same evidence.

2021Id., citing State v. Pearson, 114 Ohio App.3d 153 (3d Dist.1996). {¶26} The record is clear that during the "pat down," Agent Bailey did not believe the wallet was a weapon.

2004No. 99 CA 2480, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1079 , at *19 (citations omitted); see, also, State v. Pearson (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 153 , 163 ("the State's argument [that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies because the police possessed probable cause and could have obtained a search warrant] would obviate any Fourth Amendment warrant requirement as long as it could be show later that a warrant would in all probability have been obtained"); United States v. Echegoyen (C.A. 9, 1986), 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 fn. 7 ("to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cau

2019So I’m going to find on that basis without the need for the records, [the paramedics] would be permitted to testify. (2/9/2018 Suppression Tr. at 15.) {¶ 19} Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence obtained unconstitutionally is admissible if it “would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193, 196 , 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985.) “[T]he burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate, within a reasonable probability, that law enforcement would have discovered the evidence in question apart from the unlawful co

2019So I’m going to find on that basis without the need for the records, [the paramedics] would be permitted to testify. (2/9/2018 Suppression Tr. at 15.) {¶ 19} Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence obtained unconstitutionally is admissible if it “would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193, 196 , 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985.) “[T]he burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate, within a reasonable probability, that law enforcement would have discovered the evidence in question apart from the unlawful co

2014Ross No. 99 CA 2480, 2000 WL 283073 , *6 (Mar. 15, 2000) (finding no merit to "the state's argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine should apply just because officers could have obtained a warrant had they sought one"); United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 674, 683 (6th Cir.1994) (rejecting the logic that "simply because the police could have obtained a warrant, it was therefore inevitable that they would have done so," noting that such a ruling "would mean that there is inevitable discovery and no warrant requirement whenever there is probable cause"). {¶ 31} Again, as the record indicate

2004No. 99 CA 2480, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1079 , at *19 (citations omitted); see, also, State v. Pearson (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 153 , 163 ("the State's argument [that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies because the police possessed probable cause and could have obtained a search warrant] would obviate any Fourth Amendment warrant requirement as long as it could be show later that a warrant would in all probability have been obtained"); United States v. Echegoyen (C.A. 9, 1986), 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 fn. 7 ("to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cau

1996See, also, United States v. Buchanan (C.A.6, 1990), 904 F.2d 349 ; United States v. Satterfield (C.A.11, 1984), 743 F.2d 827, 846 (the fact that a search warrant was obtained after illegal warrantless search does not permit application of the inevitable-discovery doctrine, "[b]e-cause a valid search warrant nearly always can be obtained after the search has occurred”). 2 . (1968), 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . 3 .

1995Second, in order for evidence to be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show “(1) a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means but for the police misconduct, (2) that the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct, and (3) that the police were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct.” State v. Wilson (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 333, 336 , 646 N.E.2d 863, 865 , citing United States v. Buchanan (C.A.6,1990), 904 F.2d 349 ; United States v. Webb (C.

2017He asserts that "on re-direct, Officer Reeb testified specifically that the arrest of Ewing was based on items found on Ewing's person." Ewing asserts that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because "the State failed to show that the police 'were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation, one untainted by the illegality that took place prior to the particular misconduct,' " quoting State v. Porter , 178 Ohio App.3d 304 , 2008-Ohio-4627 , 897 N.E.2d 1149 (2d Dist.).

2017He asserts that "on re-direct, Officer Reeb testified specifically that the arrest of Ewing was based on items found on Ewing's person." Ewing asserts that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because "the State failed to show that the police 'were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation, one untainted by the illegality that took place prior to the particular misconduct,' " quoting State v. Porter , 178 Ohio App.3d 304 , 2008-Ohio-4627 , 897 N.E.2d 1149 (2d Dist.).

2024For example, in State v. Keith, 2008-Ohio-4326, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), the Second District held that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to evidence seized without a warrant. 19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶41} To the extent the inevitable discovery doctrine applies in a case, it examines not what actually took place during the course of a search, but instead what hypothetically could have occurred.

2015For the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant to apply, the state must show (1) “that the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct and (2) that the police were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct.” State v. Keith, 178 Ohio App.3d 46 , 2008- Ohio-4326, 896 N.E.2d 764, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.).

2004See State v. Hunter, 153 Ohio App.3d 628 , 2003-Ohio-4204 , at ¶ 21 . {¶ 23} Even if the state argued in the trial court that it would have inevitably discovered the contents of the safe because it had probable cause to search and, thus, could have obtained a search warrant, its claim here on appeal, the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine in this situation is inappropriate. "[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine exception does not apply in situations where the government's only argument is that it had probable cause for the search." United States v. Souza (C.A. 10, 2000), 223 F.3d

2004See State v. Hunter, 153 Ohio App.3d 628 , 2003-Ohio-4204 , at ¶ 21 . {¶ 23} Even if the state argued in the trial court that it would have inevitably discovered the contents of the safe because it had probable cause to search and, thus, could have obtained a search warrant, its claim here on appeal, the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine in this situation is inappropriate. "[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine exception does not apply in situations where the government's only argument is that it had probable cause for the search." United States v. Souza (C.A. 10, 2000), 223 F.3d

2015See also U.S. v. Souza, 223 F.3d 1197, 1203 (C.A. 10, 2000) (“To apply the inevitable discovery doctrine whenever police could have obtained a warrant, yet chose not to, would essentially eliminate the warrant requirement and encourage police to proceed without a neutral and detached magistrate’s probable cause determination”); State v. Coyle, 4th Dist.

2004See State v. Hunter, 153 Ohio App.3d 628 , 2003-Ohio-4204 , at ¶ 21 . {¶ 23} Even if the state argued in the trial court that it would have inevitably discovered the contents of the safe because it had probable cause to search and, thus, could have obtained a search warrant, its claim here on appeal, the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine in this situation is inappropriate. "[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine exception does not apply in situations where the government's only argument is that it had probable cause for the search." United States v. Souza (C.A. 10, 2000), 223 F.3d

2006Thus, the trial court’s decision to suppress the firearm is in contravention of the inevitable-discovery doctrine. {¶ 25} In so concluding, we are mindful of State v. Parrish, Franklin App. No. 01AP-832, 2002-Ohio-3275 , 2002 WL 1379027 , at ¶ 38, in which this court held that: In order for the inevitable discovery exception to apply, the state must establish that “the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct.” State v. Taylor (2000), 138 Ohio Ap

2006Thus, the trial court’s decision to suppress the firearm is in contravention of the inevitable-discovery doctrine. {¶ 25} In so concluding, we are mindful of State v. Parrish, Franklin App. No. 01AP-832, 2002-Ohio-3275 , 2002 WL 1379027 , at ¶ 38, in which this court held that: In order for the inevitable discovery exception to apply, the state must establish that “the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct.” State v. Taylor (2000), 138 Ohio Ap

2014Compare State v. Miller, 77 Ohio App.3d 305, 316 (8th Dist.1991) (finding the inevitable-discovery doctrine - 10 - Fayette CA2013-07-021 could apply if police "were attempting to get a warrant independent of [a warrantless] search"); State v. Aber, 5th Dist.

2011State v. Fann, Cuyahoga App. No. 89334, 2007-Ohio-6985 , citing State v. Helton, 160 Ohio App.3d 291, 296 , 2005-Ohio-1789 , 826 N.E.2d 925 . {¶ 29} Furthermore, we held in State v. Miller (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 305, 316 , 602 N.E.2d 296 , that the inevitable discovery doctrine could apply if police were attempting to get a warrant independent of a warrantless search.

2024State v. Blevins, 2016-Ohio-2937 , 65 N.E.3d 146 , ¶ 40 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Masten, 3d Dist.

2019However, even if Riffle’s statements were inadmissible due to the absence of the Miranda rights, the marijuana and firearms would have been found admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. “[I]llegally obtained evidence is properly admitted in a trial court proceeding once it is established that the evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful investigation.” State v. Blevins, 2016-Ohio-2937 , 65 N.E.3d 146 , ¶ 39 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 , 480 N.E.2d 763 (1985), syllabus.

2015Prior to the jury’s deliberations, the affidavit was removed from the search warrant and marked as Exhibit 10A; it was not provided to the jury, but remains part of the record. -12- 2008-Ohio-267 , 882 N.E.2d 960 , in which we held that evidence of drugs found during a protective sweep of the defendant’s home after the defendant’s arrest was not admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine.

2015Prior to the jury’s deliberations, the affidavit was removed from the search warrant and marked as Exhibit 10A; it was not provided to the jury, but remains part of the record. -12- 2008-Ohio-267 , 882 N.E.2d 960 , in which we held that evidence of drugs found during a protective sweep of the defendant’s home after the defendant’s arrest was not admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine.

2004No. 99 CA 2480, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1079 , at *19 (citations omitted); see, also, State v. Pearson (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 153 , 163 ("the State's argument [that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies because the police possessed probable cause and could have obtained a search warrant] would obviate any Fourth Amendment warrant requirement as long as it could be show later that a warrant would in all probability have been obtained"); United States v. Echegoyen (C.A. 9, 1986), 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 fn. 7 ("to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cau

2004No. 99 CA 2480, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1079 , at *19 (citations omitted); see, also, State v. Pearson (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 153 , 163 ("the State's argument [that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies because the police possessed probable cause and could have obtained a search warrant] would obviate any Fourth Amendment warrant requirement as long as it could be show later that a warrant would in all probability have been obtained"); United States v. Echegoyen (C.A. 9, 1986), 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 fn. 7 ("to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cau

2018Ashland No. 12-COA-044, 2013-Ohio-2436, ¶ 15 [despite unlawful pat-down, contraband would have been discovered during search incident to lawful arrest and contraband is therefore admissible under the inevitable discovery rule]; State v. Camp, 5th Dist.

2013Ashland No. 12-COA-044, 2013-Ohio-2436, ¶ 13-15 . {¶18} Because Officer Nida had probable cause to arrest Farrey and the money would have been discovered during a search incident to arrest, the money was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine.

2017See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 541-543, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (remanding the case for consideration of the inevitable-discovery exception where police conducted an unlawful warehouse search but later obtained a search warrant and conducted a lawful search); Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 813-816, 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (illegal entry on premises by police did not require suppression of evidence later discovered at the premises when executing a search warrant obtained on information unconnected with the initial entry).

2017See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 541-543, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (remanding the case for consideration of the inevitable-discovery exception where police conducted an unlawful warehouse search but later obtained a search warrant and conducted a lawful search); Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 813-816, 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (illegal entry on premises by police did not require suppression of evidence later discovered at the premises when executing a search warrant obtained on information unconnected with the initial entry).

2017See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 541-543, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (remanding the case for consideration of the inevitable-discovery exception where police conducted an unlawful warehouse search but later obtained a search warrant and conducted a lawful search); Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 813-816, 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (illegal entry on premises by police did not require suppression of evidence later discovered at the premises when executing a search warrant obtained on information unconnected with the initial entry).

2017See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 541-543, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (remanding the case for consideration of the inevitable-discovery exception where police conducted an unlawful warehouse search but later obtained a search warrant and conducted a lawful search); Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 813-816, 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (illegal entry on premises by police did not require suppression of evidence later discovered at the premises when executing a search warrant obtained on information unconnected with the initial entry).