Exceptions of the Exclusionary Rule: The Inevitability Doctrine

The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. The exclusionary rule developed to deter law enforcement officers from conducting illegal search and seizures by deeming evidence recovered in this manner may not be used to establish further probable cause or be admissible in court proceedings. There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule which includes the inevitability doctrine. This paper will explore the inevitability discovery doctrine and demonstrate how it is applied using a recent case in the news.

The inevitability discovery doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule that allows illegally obtained evidence to be allowed into court (Bloom, 1992). This exception was adopted by the Supreme Court case Nix v. Williams (1984). Usually evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure would be considered tainted and would be excluded based on the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine. According to Stevens (1992) the purpose of the inevitability discovery doctrine is “is to restore police to the same position they would have been if no police error or misconduct had occurred” (para. 8). With this exception, law enforcement has to prove that the illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered.

The details of Nix v. Williams clearly explain the how the inevitability discovery doctrine works. In this case, a murder suspect gave statements to law enforcement officials that led to the discovery of the child’s body (Bloom, 1992). The statements were made without a lawyer present or the suspect’s rights being read. At the time of the statements, a massive search with law enforcement and volunteers was being conducted for the body. The Supreme Court concluded 7- 2 that the evidence, the body, would have been discovered with or without the statement and therefore admissible in court.

There are criticisms to the inevitability discovery doctrine. The prosecution has to prove that illegally evidence would have been obtained legally. This however can be considered speculative as there is no way that one can prove what would have happened in the future with a definitive conclusion (Bloom, 1992). Another criticism of this exception is the exception is unfair and determinations using this doctrine are inconsistent across courts. The doctrine has held up however and is a valid argument for allowing illegally obtained evidence into court.

State vs. Hill is another example of how the inevitability discovery doctrine can be applied in cases (Paine, 2011). Hill violently beat; rapped, strangled, and murdered a woman then threw her body into a nearby creek. He was seen nearby her apartment at the time of the incident and was taken into custody. Hill refused to speak, but the police was able to convince his wife to assist them. She convinced Joe to reveal the location of the body and he was arrested for murder.

During the trial, the defense wanted to suppress evidence of Hill’s semen DNA retrieved from the victim’s body during the autopsy. The prosecution used the inevitability discovery doctrine to keep the evidence in court. They used the expert testimony of Dr. Bass to explain how the body would have decomposed emitting an odor for detectable within 50 feet in any direction (Paine, 2011). The lawyer combined this with the testimony of the neighbors who swore they mowed their lawns regularly and were aware of everything around their property because they regularly cleaned the property of trash and debris including the area around the highway and creek. Based on this information, the court concluded that the body would have been discovered and the evidence viably recovered before it would have been destroyed by maggots and decomposition. The DNA evidence was allowed and Hill was convicted of first degree premeditated murder plus abuse of a corpse.

The inevitability discovery doctrine may seem to contradict the very essence of the exclusionary rule. Some think that it is yet another protection afforded to law enforcement while others conclude that it still protects the integrity of the case. No matter how one views it, the inevitability doctrine is a valid exception to the exclusionary rule and is used in court proceedings. It is a part of the delicate checks and balances of the criminal justice system to protect and serve the people to the highest standard while making sure the guilty do not go free.