U.S. v. Witherspoon

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. JONATHAN WITHERSPOON DEFENDANT

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

Date published: Apr 26, 2010

CASE NO.: 1:09-CR-00041-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 1:09-CR-00041-TBR.

April 26, 2010

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS RUSSELL, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant, Jonathan Witherspoon's, Motion for Reconsideration (DN 23). The United States has responded (DN 24). No reply has been filed. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant again argues the plants found between the outbuildings and the footprints leading to these buildings from the field should be suppressed as they were the result of an illegal warrantless search. The Court noted in its Memorandum Opinion and Order that "[a]lthough MacArthur admitted he did not see the plants between the buildings from the corn field (Hr'g Tr. 9), MacArthur testified that the footprints could be followed from the field to the outbuilding and the plants between the buildings could be seen from the field. (Hr'g Tr. 8.)" (DN 21 at 5.) Therefore, this evidence would have lawfully been discovered from the curtilage without the illegal search. As this evidence would have lawfully been discovered, there was no need to exclude it from the affidavit in determining probable cause.

Next, Defendant argues the inevitable discovery doctrine is not applicable due to reliance on the footprints and plants between the outbuildings that were obtained as the result of a warrantless search. As just explained, the Court found that because the footprints and plants between the outbuildings would have been discovered lawfully from outside the curtilage they need not be excluded in determining probable cause. The Court found that a probable cause nexus existed and then applied the inevitable discovery doctrine concluding: "the search warrant would have been obtained and the evidence found regardless of the warrantless search of the curtilage and outbuilding. Since the evidence would have inevitably been found regardless of the unlawful search, the evidence from the search will not be suppressed." (DN 21 at 9.)

The arguments presented by Defendant are the same as those argued in the initial pleadings, at the hearing, and in the supplemental briefs. After review of the record, the Court is unpersuaded by Defendant's motion to reconsider.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.