A legal question regarding search and seizure law-- assume these
facts, and answer how a court in Iowa should rule:

1.  Jon rents an apartment.  Jon is not going to renew his lease, and
the landlord leaves a message on his answering machine that the
apartment will be shown to a prospective tennant (Jon is out of town
and doesn't get the message until later).   While Jon is gone, the
apartment is shown, and in a closet  the landlord discovers a growing
marijuana plant.

The prospective tennants leave, but the landlord remains in the
tennant's apartment, and calls the police.  Landlord let's them in. 
Police see the plant, leave, and get a search warrant.  They keep an
officer inside the apartment while the search warrant is approved. 
After approval, officers come back and search the entire apartment,
finding not just the marijuana, but also some psychodelic mushrooms.

Is search and / or warrant valid?  Can the prosecutor claim  inevitable discovery?

---

Clarification of Question by ccooklin-ga on 20 May 2005 13:27 PDT

This is a technical legal question, and if you do not have a
background in law, please don't attempt to answer.  You will probably
need access to a legal research program such as Lexus or Westlaw. 
These are expensive-- unless you already have it or are a law student,
in which case it is free.  If you do not have access to it, it will
not be worth your time to answer this-- these services are great but
costly.

The inevitable discovery aspect is less important than the question
about the search warrant validity.  The central question is whether
the landlord can "remain over" in the apartment after showing it to a
tennant to allow the police in.  It's clear this wasn't an "open
house" day, and the police were not there as potential renters.  I
think the warrant would have been OK if the landlord had simply left
and told the police what she saw.  But that's not what happened-- the
landlord remained over after showing the apartment and let the police
in.

This is a very interesting and serious question, as the price and the
many sites found with "inevitable discovery" indicate, including a
Supreme Court decision on a case in Iowa (on a discovery of different
sort).

In California, the property owner can be held responsible if marijuana
is found growing on his land.  I don't know if the law makes a
destinction about "pot" in pots in a rented building.  If anything
similar is the law in Iowa, the landlord would seem to be in his
rights and obligated to call the police in his own defense.
If Jon could prove that his landlord had no authority to enter his
apartment in his absence ...?  But if he had given notice that he was
not renewing his contract and must expect that the apartment would be
shown to prospective tenants in his absence, ...?

The 4th amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't know if this will help though...

n7691w
        I thought that document you are quoting was suspended years ago :-)
      
      Isn't it true that police can seize an apartment,
      may be whole building because it got tangled with illegal substances?

      Of course, landlord than can go and try to prove that he did not know
      about the crime. But at certain point he did know...
      Tangled web of the law!
      Fortunately, we have those expensive databases to save us ..

Ccooklin,
You are right, of course, that only someone qualified can truly answer
your question, and only a GA Researcher (blue user name - Hedgie-ga)
can post an "Answer",  Tutuzdad-ga, for example.  Comments that do not
answer a question directly can suggest ways that it can be approached;
and if they get close enough to an answer for the questioner, he or
she may be satisfied and close the question, saving money, or a
Researcher will really get to work on it.

If you accept that the landlady was right to call the police,
obviously having identified herself and her position, it doesn't seem
like it would make much difference.  The police would have gotten a
search warrant, contacted her again, and searched the apartment.