“secured” or “moving freely about.” Put simply, more facts relating to Lemons’ situation are required in order to determine whether she posed a threat. Second, Goree takes issue with the government’s description of the scope of the intrusion. As we said above, one possible inference from the court’s finding that the gun became immediately visible “upon [Officer Moon’s] entering the room” is that 6, 745-46 (1st Cir.1986) (concluding that, although ”[i]n cases where a warrant is obtained ... the active pursuit requirement is too rigid,” a requirement that the police Were actively pursuing an alternative lawful means of obtaining the evidence may "be appropriate in illegal search cases where no warrant is ever obtained”), with United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196, 1206 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Because application of the exigent
recognizing inevitable discovery exception under fourth amendment holding that in determining whether a discovery violation warrants the sanction of exclusion of evidence a court must look to whether the violation was substantial the timing of the violation the reason for the violation the degree of prejudice to the parties whether such prejudice may be cured by a postponement and the desirability of a continuance holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony holding that the prosecution normally must show that the government was actively pursuing a substantial alternate line of investigation at the time of the constitutional violation for the inevitable discovery exception to apply