Section 9.40 Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule: Inevitable Discovery and Independent Source

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

2. (§9.40) Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule: Inevitable Discovery and Independent Source

The Supreme Court has recognized additional exceptions to application of the exclusionary rule. In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), the Court approved the “inevitable discovery” exception, holding that, when proof was introduced that the body of the victim would have been found in the same condition without the illegality, suppression was not necessary. See alsoState v. Smith, 735 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). Missouri courts have also recognized the exception, explaining that:

Exclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered adds nothing to either the integrity or fairness of a criminal trial. . . . Suppression, in these circumstances, would do nothing whatever to promote the integrity of the trial process, but would inflict a wholly unacceptable burden on the administration of criminal justice.

State v. Lay, 896 S.W.2d 693, 701 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (quoting State v. Butler, 676 S.W.2d 809, 813 (Mo. banc 1984)); State v. Engel, 859 S.W.2d 822, 827–28 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (discussing history of exception).

To prevent the exception from swallowing the rule, inevitable discovery applies only when the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. State v. Blair, 691 S.W.2d 259 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. dismissed, 480 U.S. 698 (1987), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mease, 842 S.W.2d 98, 106 (Mo. banc 1992); see also:

· State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 184–87 (Mo. banc 1990) (inevitable discovery exception applies to inventory searches but requires showing that...