United States v. Almeida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule has minimal force \if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully\ (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444)
• noting that “the government must demonstrate, to a high degree of -7- probability, that the evidence would have been discovered”
• observing that the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule has minimal force “if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully” (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501)
• noting that where “officers would have eventually seized the drugs by arresting Almeida (as 21 they had planned to do before questioning him), they had little incentive to try to obtain the crack through unconstitutional means when a lawful means was readily available.”
• “The inevitable discovery exception recognizes that, if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully, ‘the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).