Questions: Another exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is inevitable discovery. The inevitable discovery rule provides that challenged evidence will be admissible if the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence by lawful means. For example, assume once again that Officer Ollie spots a man, Neil, loitering outside of a high school. Officer Ollie suspects that Neil is selling drugs to high school students. Officer Ollie approaches Neil and immediately arrests him. During the search incident to arrest, the officers discover a note in Neil's pocket that describes the location of the body of a murder victim. Assume also that the police had already been actively searching for the body of the murder victim, and had search teams canvassing in the exact location that the note described. Upon reading the note, Officer Ollie immediately goes to the location indicated on the note and discovers the body. It is subsequently determined that Officer Ollie lacked probable cause to arrest Neil, and therefore Neil was subjected to an unlawful arrest. Which of the following arguments best explains why the inevitable discovery doctrine might (or might not) apply to this situation? A. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body, the fact that Officer Ollie discovered its exact location as a result of an unlawful arrest is irrelevant. B. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body in the exact location revealed by the note, the police would have inevitably discovered it if they had continued their search efforts. C. The inevitable discovery doctrine could not apply here because Officer Ollie did not discover the body until after he found the note as a result of the unlawful arrest.

Transcript text: Another exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is inevitable discovery. The inevitable discovery rule provides that challenged evidence will be admissible if the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence by lawful means. For example, assume once again that Officer Ollie spots a man, Neil, loitering outside of a high school. Officer Ollie suspects that Neil is selling drugs to high school students. Officer Ollie approaches Neil and immediately arrests him. During the search incident to arrest, the officers discover a note in Neil's pocket that describes the location of the body of a murder victim. Assume also that the police had already been actively searching for the body of the murder victim, and had search teams canvassing in the exact location that the note described. Upon reading the note, Officer Ollie immediately goes to the location indicated on the note and discovers the body. It is subsequently determined that Officer Ollie lacked probable cause to arrest Neil, and therefore Neil was subjected to an unlawful arrest. Which of the following arguments best explains why the inevitable discovery doctrine might (or might not) apply to this situation? A. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body, the fact that Officer Ollie discovered its exact location as a result of an unlawful arrest is irrelevant. B. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body in the exact location revealed by the note, the police would have inevitably discovered it if they had continued their search efforts. C. The inevitable discovery doctrine could not apply here because Officer Ollie did not discover the body until after he found the note as a result of the unlawful arrest.