United States v. Bennett
Docket: No. 11-3805
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 13, 2012; Federal Appellate Court
Stanley Bennett was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 60 months in prison. On appeal, he contested the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the firearm, arguing it was obtained through an illegal, warrantless search. The court upheld the decision, citing the inevitable-discovery doctrine. The incident occurred in October 2009 when Officer Phillip Ealing responded to reports of a man shooting a gun. Upon arrival, Ealing observed Bennett firing a small revolver and subsequently ordered him to drop the weapon. Bennett fled into a nearby house but returned shortly without the gun. After securing Bennett, who appeared intoxicated, officers conducted a protective sweep of the residence. They found Bennett’s family but not the firearm. Bennett's mother, Mary, granted consent for the officers to search the house. Although Bennett claimed her consent was invalid due to her disability, limited education, and the chaotic situation, the court noted that she was neither detained nor coerced and consented immediately. During a hearing, the government argued that the gun was admissible based on the inevitable-discovery doctrine, positing that officers would have obtained a warrant regardless of consent due to probable cause stemming from Bennett’s reckless behavior. The district court ruled that the officers would have inevitably discovered the firearm through lawful means, affirming that even if the gun was seized illegally, it need not be suppressed if it would have been found through a warrant. The appeal court agreed, stating that Ealing had probable cause to seek a warrant and would have done so, thus affirming the lower court’s decision.