The Inevitable Discovery Rule, an Evolving Exception to the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule 40 Albany Law Review 1975-1976

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

40 Alb. L. Rev. 483 (1975-1976)
The Inevitable Discovery Rule, an Evolving Exception to the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule

handle is hein.journals/albany40 and id is 489 raw text is: THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY
RULE, AN EVOLVING EXCEPTION
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
by
Stephen H. LaCount**
and
Anthony J. Girese***
The so-called inevitable discovery rule, a relatively recent refinement
in American criminal law, is an evolving exception to the Constitutional
exclusionary rules, in force in both federal' and state jurisdictions,2 which
prohibit the use in court3 of evidence procured by law enforcement
officers in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the
accused.'
The principle underlying inevitable discovery is that evidence tainted
by illegality will not be suppressed where the prosecution establishes that
the evidence would have been discovered by law enforcement officials
through the utilization of legal and predictably performed investigatory
procedures, and without resort to illegal methods. In the words of one
commentator, the inevitable discovery factor permits the government to
remove the taint from otherwise poisoned fruit by establishing that the
*The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and suggestions of William O. Purcell, a
former Assistant District Attorney, New York County who is now associated with the New York
law firm of Barrett. Smith, Schapiro and Simon.
**B.A., Boston University, 1972; J.D. Candidate, New York Law School, (Eve. Div.) 1976;
Law Assistant to the Homicide Bureau, New York County District Attorney, 1974-75 (April); Law
Clerk to the Special Litigation Section of the Antitrust Division, United States Department of
Justice, 1975-1976; member of Legal Department of Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., 1976-present.
***B.A., C.C.N.Y., 1968; J.D., Columbia University 1971; Assistant District Attorney, New
York County 1971-75; Assistant District Attorney, Nassau County (New York).
1 Weeks V. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
2 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
3 In United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974), a 5-4 Court chose not to extend the
exclusionary rule to Grand Jury proceedings.
4 The exclusionary rule was first invoked in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), to bar
compelled testimony; next in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), to fourth amendment
violations in federal court proceedings; in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), to fourth
amendment violations in state court proceedings; in Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964), to
sixth amendment violations; and in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to confessions given
without the judicially created fourfold warnings.
483