U.S. v. Haldorson, No. 18-2279 (October 23, 2019) N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed
In prosecution on drug and possession of explosive charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car and from his apartment, even though defendant argued that police lacked probable cause to stop and arrest him, and that no exigent circumstances justified warrantless search of his locked apartment bedroom. Instant stop and arrest was motivated by defendant’s participation in controlled drug purchase that occurred 22 days prior to instant stop. Police had probable cause to arrest defendant following controlled purchase and instant three-week delay in arresting defendant did not dissipate probable cause to arrest him based upon controlled purchase. Moreover, inevitable discovery rule applied to officer’s search of defendant’s car, where said car would have been towed to police station and searched following defendant’s arrest. Also, exigent circumstances supported police search of defendant’s locked bedroom, where: (1) search of defendant’s car revealed presence of pipe bombs containing explosives; (2) there was fear that defendant had other explosives in his bedroom; and (3) police acted on said fear by evacuating defendant’s girlfriend from defendant’s apartment after discovery of explosives in defendant’s bedroom.