What is the test for inevitable discovery in the context of an appeal from an order suppressing evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

The United States appeals from an order suppressing evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, arguing that the district court erred in failing to recognize that the firearm and silencers seized were admissible under the theory of inevitable discovery. In reviewing the district court's findings of historical fact for clear error and its application of the inevitable discovery doctrine de novo, see United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013), we assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm and remand.

Although evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is ordinarily inadmissible at trial, an exception applies "if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably without the constitutional violation." United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). To demonstrate inevitable discovery, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, "viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search occurred, . . . a court can find, with a high level of confidence, that each of the

Page 3

contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. ("Under the inevitable discovery exception, unlawfully seized evidence is admissible if there is no doubt that the police would have lawfully discovered the evidence later." (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).