Instead, the question is whether the government has shown that (1) the initial entry prompted officers to seek the search warrant, and (2) even disregarding information obtained from the initial entry, whether a neutral magistrate would have still issued the search warrant. United States v. Williams, 656 F. App'x 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Murray, 487 U.S. at 542; Jenkins, 396 F.3d at 758, 761). In determining whether the initial entry prompted officers to obtain a search warrant, "the Supreme Court has instructed district courts not to give dispositive effect to officer assurances that a warrant would have been sought in the absence of the illegal search.

In the case of a search warrant that relies in part on unlawfully obtained information, the evidence seized from the execution of the search warrant “may nevertheless be admissible under the independent-source doctrine . . . ‘[i]f the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information . . . [and] the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial [improper search].'” United States v. Chapman-Sexton, 758 Fed.Appx. 437, 441 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jenkins, 396 F.3d at 758 (internal quotations omitted)); United States v. Williams, 656 Fed.Appx. 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016) (observing the court must inquire whether the initial illegal search is what prompted the subsequent search warrant and whether probable cause existed for issuing the search warrant in the absence of evidence from the illegal search). The independent source doctrine seeks to return the government to the same position it would have enjoyed without the illegal search, rather than a worse position.

To exclude this piece of evidence based on the Sixth Amendment violation would have put the police in a worse place than if the violation had never occurred, because the body would have been located as a result of the on-going massive search. See United States v. Williams , 656 F. App'x 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016) ("[P]olice who carry out a search that they should not have carried out should be put in the same, but no worse , position than they would have been in absent any error or misconduct.") (quoting United States v. Jenkins , 396 F.3d 751, 758 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original) ). In another case cited by the Government, United States v. Kennedy , 61 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1995), a person attempted to traffic a large quantity of drugs and money in checked bags on an airplane.

The inevitable discovery doctrine is based on the idea that “police who carry out a search should be put in the same, but no worse position than they would have been absent any error or misconduct.” United States v. Williams, 656 Fed.Appx. 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016.)

Thus, the Court must excise the illegally obtained information from the protective sweep from the affidavit and then decide whether the remainder sufficiently supports a finding of probable cause to search. United States v. Williams, 656 Fed.Appx. 751, 753-54 (6th Cir. 2016). “Probable cause is defined as reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion, that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

Instead, the question is whether the government has shown that (1) the initial entry prompted officers to seek the search warrant, and (2) even disregarding information obtained from the initial entry, whether a neutral magistrate would have still issued the search warrant. United States v. Williams, 656 Fed.Appx. 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Murray[ v. United States], 487 U.S. [533,] 542[ (1988); ]United States v.] Jenkins, 396 F.3d [751,] 758, 761[ (6th Cir. 2005)]).

The first prong requires the court to assess the record while avoiding giving “dispositive effect to officer assurances that a warrant would have been sought in the absence of the illegal [conduct]” where “the facts render [such] officer assurances implausible.” United States v. Williams, 656 Fed.Appx. 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Murray, 487 U.S. at

To ensure that people are protected in their homes, police officers generally need a search warrant that is issued by a neutral magistrate judge and based on sufficient probable cause prior to entry. United States v. Williams, No. 1:14-CR-118, 2015 WL 3884725, at *6 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2015), aff'd, 656 F. App'x 751 (6th Cir. 2016).

To determine if a neutral magistrate would have still issued the search warrant, courts excise the illegally obtained information from the affidavit and decide whether the remaining legally obtained information sufficiently supports a finding of probable cause. United States v. Williams, 656 F. App'x 751, 753 (6th Cir. 2016). Under the related inevitable discovery doctrine, "the exclusionary rule is inapplicable, even if the initial search [was] unlawful, as to evidence that inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means."

In order to establish that the doctrine applies to a warrant based on both legally and illegally obtained information, the Government must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) that a neutral magistrate would have issued the search warrant even if not presented with the information obtained from the illegal search; and (2) the initial search did not prompt officers to seek a warrant for the second search. United States v. Williams, 656 F. App'x 751, 754 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Jenkins, 396 F.3d at 758, 761)). The second prong is a fact-based inquiry that requires the Court to assess the record.