The kid wasn't dead when the phone was searched, and there was, as the court itself noted, no evidence of wrongdoing apparent the the officer who conducted the illegal search.
But that's besides the point. "Inevitable discovery" does not simply mean what it sounds like on a message board thread. It is not an invitation for the police to sieze everything they can and then come up with a compelling story for how they would have found it anyways. In particular: when the evidence in question is the direct result of an illegal search, its inevitability probably doesn't matter.
If the officer had a grave suspicion of wrongdoing, he had available to him a mechanism to search the phone: he could have arrested its owner or any other occupant of the house. What he can't do, at least without a warrant, is walk around someone's private home without permission and search their belongings. Had the message been flashing on the front of the phone, it would have been in plain sight and probably have been allowed. The message was not in plain sight.
But that's besides the point. "Inevitable discovery" does not simply mean what it sounds like on a message board thread. It is not an invitation for the police to sieze everything they can and then come up with a compelling story for how they would have found it anyways. In particular: when the evidence in question is the direct result of an illegal search, its inevitability probably doesn't matter.
If the officer had a grave suspicion of wrongdoing, he had available to him a mechanism to search the phone: he could have arrested its owner or any other occupant of the house. What he can't do, at least without a warrant, is walk around someone's private home without permission and search their belongings. Had the message been flashing on the front of the phone, it would have been in plain sight and probably have been allowed. The message was not in plain sight.