512 F. App'x 583
6th Cir.2013Background
- Mohammed, a convicted felon, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and reserved the right to appeal the denial of suppression.
- In July 2010, Nashville police executed an arrest warrant for DeAndre Howard at Howard's residence; two men matching Howard's description were found on the front yard, one with a gun on Mohammed's lap in plain view.
- Officers detained and disarmed both men, handcuffed them, and later separated Howard and Mohammed; Mohammed appeared intoxicated and disoriented upon wakeful examination.
- During a pat-down, officers found a small bag of marijuana, a holster, and Mohammed’s ID; Mohammed initially denied possession of the gun but later admitted possession.
- Mohammed’s background was checked in the parking lot, revealing he was a felon; he was arrested for being a felon in possession, Mirandized, and questioned on a handgun arrest questionnaire.
- The gun was later found to be stolen; the district court denied suppression and allowed the evidence under the inevitable discovery doctrine; Mohammed pled guilty to the felon-in-possession count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inevitable discovery supports the physical evidence. | Mohammed argues no inevitable discovery because identity/felony status would not have been known absent unlawful search. | Mohammed contends the Government failed to show would have discovered identities or felony status lawfully. | Yes; inevitable discovery supported admission of the physical evidence. |
| Whether inevitable discovery supports Mohammed's statements. | Mohammed asserts statements were not inevitably discovered under different arrest circumstances. | Mohammed argues the same statements would not necessarily have been made if arrested differently. | Yes; statements would have been obtained under routine procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1995) (inevitable discovery doctrine applicability)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery rationale)
- Vasquez De Reyes, 149 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 1998) (statements as evidence under inevitable discovery concerns)
- United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 1999) (routine procedures would have led to discovery)
- United States v. Lazar, 604 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2010) (keep speculation to a minimum; rely on demonstrated facts)
- United States v. McGlown, 150 F. App’x 462 (6th Cir. 2005) (inevitable discovery for stolen gun context)