concurring.
The trial court properly recognized this as not a typical suppression situation. As the majority points out, the inevitable discovery doctrine typically applies to bar suppression of evidence that, if not for the tainted investigation, would inevitably have been “discovered” or “uncovered.” See United States v. Alexander, 540 F.3d 494, 502 (6th Cir.2008) (quoted by the majority opinion, supra); United States v. Leake, 95 F.3d 409, 412 (6th Cir.1996).
In this case, the police were on premises with consent of the accused when they “discovered” or “uncovered” the printer. The police did not seize the printer at that time as the accused had admitted passing counterfeit notes, but denied other involvement. Two later interviewed witnesses (one of whom was Quinney’s brother) identified Quinney as the counterfeiter. The police thereafter returned to seize the printer and did so, even though they had neither a warrant nor consent to search. One can speculate about why the police failed to obtain a warrant before making the seizure, but nothing in the record justifies this failure.
I therefore join the majority.