The inevitable doctrine of discovery was first adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. [2] [3] In this case, Williams, the respondent, challenged the admissibility of evidence about the location and condition of the victim`s body because it was obtained by him in violation of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The court ruled that the evidence was admissible because law enforcement would have “inevitably” discovered the body even without Williams` testimony because a massive search was underway at the very spot where the body was eventually found. [4] Before Nix v. Williams, an inevitable discovery rule had been accepted in the “vast majority” of state and federal courts. [4] In its opinion, the Court formally adopted the rule in its own case law. Williams (Williams II). It then recommends a way to apply the doctrine in order to achieve its objective of avoiding an unjustified exclusion of evidence without significantly diluting the effect of the exclusionary rule. Inevitable; accidental; go beyond the power of solicitude, foresight or effort to avoid or prevent them, and thus suspend legal relationships insofar as they are exempt from the performance of contractual obligations or liability for consequential damages. Inevitable accident.
An unavoidable accident is an accident caused by an irresistible physical cause; An accident that cannot be avoided by human skill or foresight, but is due to natural causes such as lightning or storm, marine hazards, floods or earthquakes, or sudden death or disease. Irresistible violence means an interposition of human action, absolutely uncontrollable by its nature and power. Brousseau v. The Hudson, 11 La. Sch. 428; State vs. Lewis. 107 N. C. 967, 12 S.
B. 457. 11 L. R. A. 105; Russell v. Fagan, 7 Houst. (Del.) 389, 8 Atl. 258; Hall v. Cheney, 86 N. H. 30; Newport News & M.
V. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. 48a 9 C.C.A. 579; The wall R. L Mabey, 14. 215, 20 L. ed. 881; The Locklibo, 3 W.
Rob. 318. An unavoidable accident occurs when a ship makes a lawful remedy lawfully, taking appropriate precautions against hazards and causing an accident. The highest level of caution that can be applied is not required. It is sufficient that it be reasonable in the circumstances; As is customary in similar cases, and has proved sufficient over many years of experience to meet the intended purpose, the security of life and property. The Grace Girdler. 7 walls. 196, 19 L. ed. 113. An unavoidable accident shall occur only if the disaster occurs for natural reasons, without negligence or fault on either side, and if both parties have endeavoured by all means in their power, with care and prudence and with an appropriate demonstration of their nautical competence, to prevent the occurrence of the accident.
Sampson v. United States, 12 ct. CI. 491. The Court rejected this view on the ground that the State did not require proof of good faith in order to avail itself of the inevitable exception of discovery. The Court held that it is not realistic to assume that a police officer faced with the possibility of illegally obtaining evidence would currently calculate whether a court would conclude that the evidence would inevitably have been discovered; He also noted that the risk of civil liability and ministry discipline would also deter police from engaging in such misconduct. [8] On the other hand, courts such as the Florida Supreme Court have held that the unavoidable discovery rule is not intended to facilitate warrantless searches. If evidence was obtained by searching the home of an accused without a court order, the rule can only be applied if the prosecution can prove that the police were in any event in the process of obtaining an arrest warrant for the same premises. Various scholars and practitioners have criticized the doctrine of inevitable discovery and its sister exceptions for undermining the constitutional protections embodied in the exclusionary rule.
The tribunal also used Nix to resolve a dispute regarding the relevance of bad faith to the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine. In Mobley v. The Supreme Court of Georgia has highlighted how the doctrine of unavoidable discovery could interact with the growing scope of government protections against inappropriate search and seizure in the digital context. In this case, officers seized data from the defendant`s automobile system showing that he was driving at nearly 100 miles per hour and was likely responsible for the deaths of both people in the car with which he collided. They only received an arrest warrant for the data afterwards. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that police violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to obtain a warrant before accessing vehicle data, and that the doctrine of inevitable discovery did not apply: it argued that police showed no indication of plans to obtain a warrant before the data was deleted. and that the police service had no policy or practice. obtain this data after a fatal accident. [38] [39] Unavoidable; accidental; go beyond the power of solicitude, foresight or effort to avoid or prevent them, thus suspending legal relationships to the extent that they are exempt from the performance of contractual obligations or liability for losses resulting therefrom.