Exceptions of the exclusionary rule the inevitability doctrine
It is illogical to admit primary evidence under either of these exceptions because the status quo ante rationale is based on deterrence, and there is no deterrent if the evidence is not excluded.
Independent source doctrine
The exclusionary rule is the primary safeguard of fourth amendment rights. Thus, the application of the inevitable discovery exception to primary evidence permits the exception to swallow the exclusionary rule and eviscerates the fourth amendment. See Utah v. They reason that admitting the evidence would emasculate the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. In Herring v. In Segura, the police illegally entered the defendant's apartment while they waited for a search warrant to issue. The Court held that, by subjecting the defendant to a manipulative "Christian burial speech," the police had deliberately elicited the defendant's incriminating statements which led them to the body. The primary evidence - the testimony that the witnesses had identified the defendant at the line-up - was excluded automatically.
They can conduct a search immediately upon arrest in violation of the constitutional limitations on the scope of a search incident to arrest. In the search pursuant to the warrant, the agents seized both the plain view evidence and evidence that had not been discovered during the illegal entry.
Admittedly, excluding primary evidence from the scope of the inevitable discovery exception would put the police in a worse position. In Gilbert v.
Police routinely conduct inventory searches of vehicles that have been impounded. The primary evidence - the testimony that the witnesses had identified the defendant at the line-up - was excluded automatically. In William I, the defendant had been convicted for the murder of a ten-year-old girl.
based on 72 review