inevitable-discovery rule – evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search is admissible, and the illegality is harmless, if the evidence would have been obtained nevertheless in the ordinary course of police work

     This page is continued from Criminal Law Self-Help >>>> Preliminary Hearing or Grand jury Proceeding >>>> Pretrial Discovery (criminal) >>>> Exclusionary Rules:

***************************

 

inevitable-discovery rule:
(1963)

1. Criminal procedure. The rule that evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search is admissible, and the illegality of the search is harmless, if the evidence would have been obtained nevertheless in the ordinary course of police work.  *  The rule is an exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.   The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the inevitability of the discovery. — aka inevitable-discovery doctrine; inevitable-disclosure doctrine. [1]

1. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not bar the introduction into evidence of facts obtained by a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, or a confession secured in violation of the Sixth Amendment, fi the facts would have been discovered whether or not the illegal conduct occurred. [2]

primary-evidence rule – when evidence sought in an illegal search is seized during that search, the inevitable-discovery doctrine does not apply.

***************************

inevitable discovery doctrine:
(second definition)

1. Trade secrets. The legal theory that a key employee, once hired by a competitor, cannot avoid misappropriating the former employer’s trade secrets.  *  To justify an injunction, the plaintiff must prove that the former employee has confidential information and will not be able to avoid using that knowledge to unfairly compete against the plaintiff.  Mose courts have rejected this controversial doctrine on grounds that it effectively turns a nondisclosure agreement into a disfavored non-competition agreement.  The leading case upholding the doctrine is Pepsico, Inc. v Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), where the court quipped, “PepsiCo finds itself in the position of a coach, one of whose players has left, playbook in hand, to join the opposing team before the big game.— aka inevitable-disclosure rule; inevitability doctrine; inevitable-misappropriation doctrine. [1]

References:

Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use.

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6

[2]:  Ballantine’s Law Dictionary Legal Assistant Edition
by Jack Ballantine 
(James Arthur 1871-1949).  Doctored by Jack G. Handler, J.D. © 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.  ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.

*******************************

Back to Types of Pleas (criminal law)

Back to Types of Pleas and Pleadings

Back to Criminal Law Self-Help

Home Page

Like this website?

Please Support Our Fundraiser

or donate via PayPal:

 

Disclaimer: Wild Willpower does not condone the actions of Maximilian Robespierre, however the above quote is excellent!

This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of

Question(s)?  Suggestion(s)?
Distance@WildWillpower.org.
We look forward to hearing from you!