When police search a bag without a warrant, defense lawyers often look first to whether the search was a lawful “search incident to arrest.” But a recent published decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States v. Allen, decided April 28, 2026, is a sharp reminder that winning that argument is not always enough. Even where a search violates the Fourth Amendment, the government may still use the evidence if it can show the contraband would have been found anyway through a lawful inventory search. Understanding this “inevitable discovery” doctrine is essential for anyone facing federal gun or drug charges in North Carolina.
The case arose near midnight in downtown Raleigh in October 2023, when officers investigating a stolen vehicle encountered Milton Allen riding a bicycle through their crime scene. After repeated orders to leave the area, officers arrested Allen following a violent struggle. They removed two cross-body bags he was wearing, set them a few feet away, and—after handcuffing him and securing his ankles—searched the bags. Inside they found two loaded pistols, cocaine, marijuana, fentanyl, a digital scale, cell phones, and nearly $2,000 in cash. Allen was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances.
The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Problem
Allen moved to suppress the evidence, relying on the Fourth Circuit’s 2021 decision in United States v. Davis. In Davis, the court held that searching a backpack belonging to an already-handcuffed arrestee was unlawful because, once secured, the person cannot reach the container to grab a weapon or destroy evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant permits a warrantless search incident to arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the container at the moment of the search.
The district court agreed with Allen. By the time officers searched the bags, Allen was handcuffed, in leg irons, and surrounded by officers. He could not have reached the bags. On that basis, the trial judge granted the motion to suppress and threw out the evidence. For the defense, that should have been a complete victory—and at the trial level, it was. The government’s argument that Allen was still squirming and might have lunged for the bags did not carry the day.
Inevitable Discovery Changes the Outcome
On appeal, however, the government pressed a different theory, and it won. Even assuming the roadside search was unlawful, prosecutors argued, the contents of the bags would inevitably have been discovered through routine inventory searches once Allen was processed into the Wake County Detention Center. The Fourth Circuit agreed and reversed.
The inevitable discovery doctrine, rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in Nix v. Williams, allows otherwise-tainted evidence to be admitted if the government proves it would ultimately have been found through lawful means. An inventory search is one such lawful means. These searches are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement because they serve legitimate purposes—safeguarding property, protecting officers, and preventing weapons or contraband from entering a jail—rather than hunting for evidence of a crime.
The key, the court explained, is that an inventory search must follow standardized criteria that limit an officer’s discretion. A policy must be clear about who gets searched, when, and what property is included, so the search does not become, in the court’s words, a ruse for general rummaging. In Allen’s case, both the Raleigh Police Department and the Wake County Detention Center had policies requiring that every arrestee’s personal property—including bags—be searched before entry into the jail. Detention Center personnel testified that “every single” arrestee was subject to the policy, and that the process routinely uncovered drugs and guns.
Two Lessons for Defendants
The Fourth Circuit rejected the district court’s reasons for refusing to apply the doctrine. First, the trial judge’s personal skepticism of inevitable discovery was irrelevant; lower courts are bound by Supreme Court doctrine. Second, the government did not need to produce a written copy of the detention center’s policy. As the court has held in cases like Bullette and Seay, officer testimony describing standard inventory procedures is sufficient. The undisputed evidence showed the bags would have been searched at intake regardless of what happened on the street.
For defendants, the practical takeaway is sobering but important. Proving that a roadside or on-scene search violated the Fourth Amendment is only half the battle. Prosecutors will frequently argue that jail inventory procedures would have turned up the same evidence. A strong defense must therefore probe whether a genuine, standardized inventory policy actually existed, whether officers truly followed it, and whether the search left room for discretionary “rummaging.” Where a policy is vague, inconsistently applied, or used as a pretext, the inevitable discovery argument can still fail.
This decision sits alongside other recent Fourth Amendment developments worth watching, including the Fourth Circuit’s treatment of warrantless entry in our discussion of Case v. Montana and the emergency aid exception. It also matters greatly in serious drug prosecutions, like those we examined in connection with a Durham County fentanyl bust and its federal consequences, where suppression of physical evidence can be the difference between conviction and dismissal.
If you are facing federal criminal charges involving firearms or controlled substances, the admissibility of the evidence against you may turn on these fine but consequential distinctions. Attorney Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law—one of fewer than a dozen in Wake County—with extensive experience litigating suppression motions in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the Fourth Circuit. To discuss your case, contact The Chetson Firm at 19 W. Hargett St., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC, for a confidential consultation.