The inevitable discovery doctrine permits admission of evidence under what condition?

• A. If the evidence is from a properly executed warrant
• B. If it would inevitably have been discovered
• C. If the suspect waives the right to counsel
• D. If the evidence is corroborated by multiple witnesses

Answer: (B)

The main concept is that the inevitable discovery doctrine allows evidence to come in when the police would have discovered it anyway through lawful means, even if some illegal action occurred first. It’s an exception to the exclusionary rule: the focus is on whether the evidence’s discovery was bound to happen regardless of the improper step, not on whether the initial action was lawful.

This is the best answer because it states that the evidence would inevitably have been discovered. If investigators were already pursuing a lawful path that would have led to the same evidence, the evidence may be admitted despite the earlier misstep. The other ideas don’t fit this rule: having a warrant isn’t the determining factor for inevitable discovery, waiving counsel relates to rights advisement, and corroboration by multiple witnesses isn’t about how the evidence was discovered.