United States v. Maurice Kevin Alexis
688 F. App'x 656
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alexis was stopped for allegedly having illegally tinted windows; officers learned his license was suspended and arrested him.
- Alexis was driving a rented Chevrolet Impala; he told officers he was not on the rental agreement and did not identify anyone present as the renter.
- Two women arrived at the scene; one (Andrews) denied being on the rental agreement and admitted she did not have the car keys.
- The Impala was blocking a lane of traffic on a two-lane road, and officers decided to tow it to avoid a hazard and potential impound issue.
- During the inventory search incident to towing, officers discovered a firearm and ammunition in the vehicle; Alexis was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Alexis moved to suppress the gun evidence as the product of an unlawful search; the district court admitted the evidence under the inevitable discovery doctrine and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle search was unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Alexis argued the search was unlawful and the gun’s discovery did not qualify as inevitable discovery | Government argued towing and inventory search were inevitable because no authorized driver was present and car blocked traffic | Court held evidence admissible under inevitable discovery; affirmed district court |
| Whether an authorized driver was available to take possession of the vehicle | Alexis argued Andrews was present and could have taken the car, making towing unnecessary | Government pointed to testimony that Andrews disclaimed authorization and lacked keys; officers attempted to find an authorized driver | Court credited officers’ testimony; found no authorized driver present |
| Whether deviations from department towing procedures rendered the tow unlawful | Alexis argued officers failed to follow procedures, so towing was improper | Government showed officers attempted to locate an authorized driver and towing was reasonable given traffic hazard | Court held minor procedural deviations did not make towing unlawful when officers actively tried to secure an authorized driver |
| Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine applies and required active pursuit before the illegal conduct | Alexis argued the doctrine did not apply because lawful discovery was not sufficiently certain or actively pursued | Government relied on contemporaneous efforts to locate an authorized driver and the traffic hazard that would have led to towing and inventory | Court applied Johnson standard and concluded lawful means (towing/inventory) were being actively pursued and discovery was inevitable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 777 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines inevitable discovery standard and active pursuit requirement)
- United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2003) (deference to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013) (addresses reaching dispositive Fourth Amendment issues without resolving standing)