concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the judgment and the opinion of the court with respect to the appeal of Ann Jones. Regrettably, I must part company with my colleagues with respect to the appeal of Otto Jones. In my view, the cash found on his person was admitted erroneously and, on the record in this case, cannot be overlooked as harmless error.
As the majority notes, the government attempts to justify the admission of the cash only on the theory that the investigators inevitably would have discovered the money in a search incident to the arrest of Mr. Jones prior to leaving the premises that evening. No attempt is made to justify, on the authority of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the initial patdown of Mr. Jones that yielded the money. The Terry exception has a “narrow scope,” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 210, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2255, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979), which the Supreme Court has been “careful to maintain.” Terry justifies a pat-down for weapons when the officer has “a reasonable belief’ that the accosted individual is “armed and presently dangerous.” Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 92-93, 100 S.Ct. 338, 343, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979). Here the officers encountered Mr. Jones in a bathrobe and slippers at the front door of a home they were about to search pursuant to a warrant issued on probable cause that a counterfeiting operation was underway on the premises. This encounter is not perhaps comparable to the situation in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), in which a lone police officer encountered, in a high crime district at night, a person believed by the officer to be armed. On the other hand, the situation in this case certainly counseled a great deal more caution than the one that confronted the officers in Ybarra. There a patdown of a bystander in a bar was held to be beyond the scope of Terry. The government’s caution in not attempting to justify the patdown in this case on Terry grounds demonstrates commendable restraint, and, like my colleagues, I *1337do not wish to be misunderstood as having decided the issue sub silentio.
Turning to the issue presented by the parties and decided by my colleagues — the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine— I note at the outset that there is no disagreement between myself and the majority about the standards applicable in an inevitable discovery situation. I agree that, in order to avail itself of this doctrine, the government must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officers would have discovered the currency in Mr. Jones’ bathrobe pocket prior to leaving the premises on the night in question. To meet this burden, the government must establish that it had probable cause to effect Mr. Jones’ arrest that evening.
As the majority demonstrates with meticulous attention to detail, there was certainly probable cause to arrest Ann Jones. She had been observed dealing in counterfeit currency at that residence. The search, conducted pursuant to a warrant, had yielded a great deal of evidence to support the investigator’s belief that she. was dealing in counterfeit currency. The situation is starkly different with respect to Mr. Jones. No one disputes that, at the time of their entrance into the home, the investigators had no reason to believe that Mr. Jones had committed a crime. His attire indicated that he lived at the address. Nothing discovered after the entrance permitted a contrary conclusion. The placement of his clothing in the same bedroom as Ann Jones certainly indicated a familial relationship with the arrestee. It did not establish, however, his personal responsibility for the criminal activity.
The Supreme Court stressed in Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91, 100 S.Ct. at 342, that the determination of probable cause must be made on an individual basis; the “mere propinquity” of an individual to another does not establish probable cause. This principle has been established in our law for a very long time. Id. at 94, 100 S.Ct. at 343-44. Application of this rule does require, of course, an evaluation of — to borrow a phrase of Justice Jackson’s from another context — the “practicalities and peculiarities”1 of a situation. For instance, there certainly will be situations in which the proximity of individuals clearly indicates a working relationship in criminal activity. Indeed, such was the situation in the cases relied upon by the majority to support its conclusion. See United States v. Pace, 898 F.2d 1218, 1240 (7th Cir.) (nonresidents present in a condominium during a drug transaction), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1030, 110 S.Ct. 3286, 111 L.Ed.2d 795 (1990); United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 479, 486 (7th Cir.1982) (arrest after armed struggle of two men in motel room filled with drugs and drug paraphernalia), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1106, 103 S.Ct. 2453, 77 L.Ed.2d 1333 (1983). By contrast, on the night in question, the only evidence uncovered by the investigating officers with respect to Mr. Jones established that he was a resident of the dwelling and was the spouse of the suspect. Neither status, resident or spouse, is contrary to the criminal law. Mr. Jones was under no obligation to abandon his home or his family.
What is particularly disturbing about today’s holding is its breadth. The judiciary traditionally has recognized its obligation to ensure that the guilt of one spouse is not imputed to the other. Cf. United States v. Castro, 788 F.2d 1240, 1249 (7th Cir.1986) (commenting on the trial judge’s care in ensuring that jury evaluated independently the evidence against each spouse). In this ease, however, the court holds that, although “ultimately, the government must make an independent case for the spouse’s culpability,” it may establish probable cause to arrest a spouse by establishing awareness of the illegal activity and access to the tools of that activity which are kept in the home. This approach will no doubt result in the arrest and detention of a great number of spouses whose only “crime” is their lack of prudence, or foresight, in choosing a life partner. We need not speculate on the potential for abuse. Maltreatment of a spouse by law enforcement authorities in order to induce cooperation by a suspect is not an unknown oceur-*1338rence in this country or elsewhere. See United States v. Talkington, 843 F.2d 1041, 1049 (7th Cir.1988) (describing “strong suggestion in record” that threatened maltreatment of wife induced husband’s consent to search home).
In my view, on that evening the investigating officers lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Jones. Accordingly, the discovery of the money in his bathrobe was not inevitable. Nor, given the thin case against him, can I say that this error was harmless. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of conviction entered against Mr. Jones and would remand the case for further proceedings.
. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).