Inevitable discovery
Encyclopedia
Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States
criminal procedure that allows evidence of a defendant
's guilt that would otherwise be considered inadmissible under the exclusionary rule
to be admitted into evidence in a trial
.
The doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is admissible in court if it can be established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. The rationale for the rule is that police misconduct is sufficiently deterred and the interests of society are better served by putting police in the same position that they would have been in without the rights violation, not a worse position.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
criminal procedure that allows evidence of a defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
's guilt that would otherwise be considered inadmissible under the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
to be admitted into evidence in a trial
Trial
A trial is, in the most general sense, a test, usually a test to see whether something does or does not meet a given standard.It may refer to:*Trial , the presentation of information in a formal setting, usually a court...
.
The doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is admissible in court if it can be established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. The rationale for the rule is that police misconduct is sufficiently deterred and the interests of society are better served by putting police in the same position that they would have been in without the rights violation, not a worse position.