United States v. Christy, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 84

Background

Christy is charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexual activity and possessing child pornography after police used a warrantless entry to his home.
K.Y., a 16-year-old, had a sexual relationship with Christy; authorities traced calls and travel between California and New Mexico and tied Christy to K.Y.'s disappearance.
BCSO deputies conducted a welfare check, saw K.Y. bound with a rope through a window, and obtained warrants based partly on that observation and Christy’s statements.
Evidence from the subsequent searches included condoms, sexual devices, and digital files later found to contain child pornography.
The district court suppressed the evidence as the result of an unlawful entry, but granted the government’s motion to reconsider, allowing inevitable-discovery evidence to be admitted.
Christy appealed challenging the reconsideration ruling and the application of inevitable discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting reconsideration.	Christy contends the government had opportunity to brief inevitable discovery earlier.	Government argues the court properly corrected an overlooked issue.	No abuse; reconsideration proper to address overlooked issue.
Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine applies.	Christy argues no independent lawful means would have discovered the evidence.	Government contends lawful means would inevitably have led to discovery.	Inevitable discovery applies; lawful discovery would have occurred independently.
Whether an independent investigation is required for inevitable discovery.	Christy asserts a second independent investigation was necessary.	Government argues independent lawful means, not a second investigation, suffice.	Independent investigation not required; one lawful path could have yielded the warrant.
Whether the Souza factors support inevitable discovery.	Christy disputes the application of factors, including probable cause strength and pre-search steps.	Government contends factors favor inevitable discovery due to probable cause and safety concerns.	Souza factors support inevitable discovery; high likelihood of warrant and discovery existed.
Whether officers’ lack of pre-search warrant steps undermines inevitable discovery.	Christy argues steps to obtain a warrant were not shown as prerequisites.	Government contends steps are one factor among others, not a prerequisite.	Steps to obtain a warrant are not a strict prerequisite; warrant would have been obtained independently.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Owens, 782 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1986) (independent investigation not strictly required for inevitable discovery)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court 1984) (inevitable discovery admissibility when discovered by lawful means)
Cunningham, 413 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2005) (even illegal searches may yield admissible evidence if warrant would have been obtained)
Souza, 223 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (four-factor test to assess likelihood of warrant absent illegal search)
United States v. Larsen, 127 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 1997) (inevitable discovery can apply without a separate second investigation)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court 1988) (related independent-source rule; warrant and seizure not tainted by illegality)
United States v. Meija, 69 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995) (cautionary discussion on limits of inevitable discovery)
Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court 1976) (purpose of allowing motions to reconsider to correct errors)