Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, which statement is true?

Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, which statement is true?

• A. Evidence that would have been discovered lawfully anyway may be admitted.
• B. The doctrine requires the discovery to be supported by a warrant.
• C. The doctrine applies only to physical evidence.
• D. The doctrine excludes any evidence tainted by unlawful action.

Answer: (A)

Inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained unlawfully may still be admitted if the police would have discovered it anyway through lawful means. The crucial point is inevitability—even without the unconstitutional action, proper investigative steps would have led to the same discovery. A warrant is not a required trigger for this doctrine; what matters is that lawful discovery was bound to occur. This applies to more than just physical items, and it does not automatically bar evidence simply because some illegality occurred earlier. So the statement that fits is that evidence that would have been discovered lawfully anyway may be admitted.

Inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained unlawfully may still be admitted if the police would have discovered it anyway through lawful means. The crucial point is inevitability—even without the unconstitutional action, proper investigative steps would have led to the same discovery. A warrant is not a required trigger for this doctrine; what matters is that lawful discovery was bound to occur. This applies to more than just physical items, and it does not automatically bar evidence simply because some illegality occurred earlier. So the statement that fits is that evidence that would have been discovered lawfully anyway may be admitted.