United States v. Jose M. Cabassa

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding second factor weighed against government where residual possibility remained that magistrate would have required stronger showing of probable cause
• recognizing the “semantic puzzle” created by “using the preponderance of the evidence standard to prove inevitability”
• holding, inter alia, that the “likely” possibility that “evidence might disappear before the issuance or execution of a warrant” undermined the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine
• instructing that where inevitable discovery claim is “based on expected issuance of a warrant, the extent to which the warrant process has been completed” at time of unlawful search “is of great importance”
• emphasizing the difference “between proving by a preponderance that something would have happened and proving by a preponderance that something would inevitably have happened”
• reversing denial of suppression motion because inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply when at the time of the unlawful search the process of obtaining a warrant had just begun, a warrant was never obtained, and probable cause showing was not overwhelming

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).