In NYIA GORE v. U.S., decided on August 18, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for destruction of property as the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppression evidence based on 4^th Amendment violations.

The facts of the case stemmed from a domestic dispute where the appellant’s boyfriend complained of the appellant destroying his property inside a motel room that they shared.

Officers responded to the scene and upon questioning the appellant and without express consent of the appellant entered the room searched and recovered destroyed property and consequently charged the appellant.

The appellant’s motion to suppression essentially contended “that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights when, in the absence of exigent circumstances, they entered and searched her home without her consent and without a warrant; and, further, that the officers lacked probable cause to justify their entry.”

The government on the other hand argued that search and seizure of the property was valid as there was a probable cause to enter the room – the appellant had admitted via text messaging that she had destroyed property and made also statements to the Officers consistent with the text message.

The Officer thus had a reasonable basis to place her under arrest and the destroyed property would have been inevitably recovered subsequent to the arrest.

Specifically “the appellant’s admission to having ‘trashed’ Mr. Ward’s property furnished the requisite probable cause, and that the evidence found in the warrantless intrusion was properly admitted under the ‘inevitable discovery’ exception to the exclusionary rule.”

The elements of misdemeanor malicious destruction of property are:

1. The defendant damaged or destroyed, or attempted to damage or destroy property;
2. The property belonged to another person;
3. The property had some value;
4. The defendant acted voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident;
5. The defendant acted with the intent to damage or destroy the property or despite knowing that his or her conduct created a substantial risk of harm to the property; and
6. The defendant acted without justification, excuse, or mitigating circumstances.

The Court of Appeals held that although the elements of the crime were met here, and even if probable cause existed and the Officers believed a crime was committed — entry and search of the premises was not constitutional as there were no exigent circumstances existed and thus a search warrant was required to enter the property.

Specifically the Court of Appeals stated: in the absence of exigent circumstances, the existence of probable cause does not privilege the police to enter someone’s home without a warrant, and we conclude that the “inevitable discovery” doctrine does not apply to the direct and immediate fruits of that Fourth Amendment violation.

Thus  the physical evidence as well as the incriminating admissions obtained after Officers entered the motel room should have been suppressed.

The inevitable discovery doctrine prohibited suppression of illegally obtained evidence from the exclusionary rule if the government can prove by “a preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.”

In another word: “the lawful process which would have ended in the inevitable discovery must have commenced before the constitutionally invalid seizure, and there must be the requisite actuality that the discovery would have ultimately been made by lawful means.”

There is no evidence here that discovery of evidence would have been made through lawful means and in the absence of 4^th Amendment violation and thus the inevitable discovery rule is inapplicable and not a defense to illegal search.

Thus the case was remanded for the trial court to suppress all evidence gathered, seized and captured upon illegal warrantless entry of the property.

Contact our Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer today to schedule your initial consultation.