In a conviction for manufacturing and passing counterfeit currency, district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress key evidence used against him is reversed and remanded where: 1) the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to warrantless searches where a warrant could have been obtained based on probable cause; and 2) the case is remanded to evaluate the statements made by defendant to the agents, based on the mistaken belief that the printer was properly admissible evidence, to evaluate whether they should also be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Argued: July 31, 2009
Decided and Filed: October 1, 2009
Opinion by Circuit Judge Gilman
For Appellant: Jeffrey Paul Nunnari, Toledo, Ohio
For Appellee: David O. Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Toledo, Ohio