Â§ 4-29 Prosecution reply to motion to suppress evidence â€” Application of inevitable discovery doctrine
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. _______________ DEFENDANT _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILED ________ : ________ DEPUTY CLERK MOTION TO LIMIT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TO DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE The State of Louisiana, by counsel, relates to this Court that on ________ , ________ , the undersigned received from the defendant's counsel a motion to suppress "all evidence seized and information learned as a result of a search of a dwelling located at ________ , ________ , Louisiana on ________ , ________ " on the grounds that "said evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure in violation of the protection guaranteed to the Defendant by the Constitution of Louisiana, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution." The defendant is scheduled to be tried in this Court on ________ , ________ , on an indictment charging ________ . It is the position of the State that defendant's motion to suppress because of the absence of probable cause for issuance of the search warrant is unfounded, as there was ample probable cause under Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). However, there is no need for the Court to consider the legality of the search because the seized items "ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means." Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984); Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 208 S. E. 2d 746 (1974); Keeter v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 134, 278 S. E. 2d 841 (1981). Because the seized evidence was inevitably discoverable in this case, it would be a wasteful allocation of time and effort for the Court and counsel to develop and consider memorandum of law on the issue of the lawfulness of the search. WHEREFORE, the State respectfully moves this Court to direct defense counsel to limit his initial presentation at the suppression hearing to the applicability of the "inevitable discovery" doctrine in this case.
_________________ District Attorney (Certificate of service)