Motion to suppress evidence; The inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule; People v Hyde; People v Mahdi

Holding that the prosecution failed to show that the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applied, the court affirmed the order granting defendant-Galloway’s motion to suppress. There have been multiple appeals in this case. Defendant is charged with the first-degree premeditated murder of a woman (S) who disappeared in 2016. At issue here was his successful motion to suppress evidence about “his TCF Bank account and his purchase of a new comforter” two days after S’s disappearance. The prosecution argued “that the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule should apply here.” In Mahdi, the court listed several factors to be considered “in determining whether the inevitable-discovery rule applies[.]” Applying them here, the court was “unable to conclude that Galloway’s TCF Bank account and his transaction at Bed Bath & Beyond would have inevitably been discovered independently of any constitutional violation.” It noted that the prosecution did not identify “evidence that the police were engaged in a canvassing of financial institutions” or any evidence supporting “a conclusion that the police would have inevitably discovered Galloway’s financial records with TCF Bank, which would have led to evidence of the Bed Bath & Beyond transaction.” The court determined that the prosecution instead relied “on speculative assertions, which are insufficient to satisfy” its burden to establish “by a preponderance of evidence that the information inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.”