Kennebrew v. State, 304 Ga. 406

Kennebrew was convicted of malice murder and related offenses; convictions were reversed on first appeal for ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including failure to seek suppression of evidence seized from two backpacks belonging to his girlfriend's dorm room.
Police seized the backpacks when arresting Kennebrew pursuant to an arrest warrant; the backpacks were not searched until six days later by CSI Woolford.
At remand new counsel moved to suppress evidence from the backpacks; the trial court denied the motion, reasoning the items would have inevitably been discovered via a lawful inventory search.
The State argued (a) an inventory search occurred at the scene on October 20, or (b) an inventory was done on October 26, and alternatively that inevitable discovery saved the evidence.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the suppression ruling, found the record insufficient to support that any inventory search occurred on October 20 and that the October 26 search complied with standardized inventory procedures, and rejected inevitable discovery.

Issue	Kennebrew's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether prior appellate decision (law of the case) precluded denial of suppression	Prior opinion required suppression; trial court bound by it	Trial court not bound; merits should decide	Court did not resolve law-of-the-case (merits dispositive) and reversed on merits
Whether an inventory search occurred at the scene on Oct. 20	No — record shows no opening/inventory that day	Yes — State contends CSI/Sergeant performed inventory then	Finding that an Oct. 20 inventory occurred is clearly erroneous; record shows no such search
Whether the Oct. 26 search qualified as a lawful inventory under standardized procedures	No — six-day gap and record do not show compliance with mandated procedures	Yes — policy required inventories of closed containers before property-room submission; Oct. 26 was that inventory	State failed to prove the Oct. 26 search complied with required standardized/invariable inventory procedures; not a valid inventory
Whether inevitable discovery doctrine admits the evidence	No — State did not show a reasonable probability lawful means would have discovered the items or that such means were actively pursued	Yes — even if original search illegal, items would inevitably have been found during proper inventory	Rejected: State did not meet its burden; inevitable discovery not established

Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (establishes inventory-search exception to warrant requirement)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria; opening containers limited)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (police discretion in inventories must follow standard criteria)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (burden on government to justify exceptions to warrant requirement)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (overruling aspects of earlier precedent on searches; discussed in context of exceptions)
Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (vehicle search after impoundment upheld where consistent with procedures)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches pursuant to standard procedures reasonable)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (articulates inevitable-discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Johnson, 777 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.) (government must show reasonable probability and active pursuit for inevitable discovery)
Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (Georgia case rejecting inevitable-discovery/inventory when procedures not shown invariable)
Teal v. State, 282 Ga. 319 (explains Georgia application of inevitable-discovery exception)
Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319 (standards of review for suppression rulings)
Caffee v. State, 303 Ga. 557 (appellate review construes record in favor of trial-court findings)