Segura V. Williams 1984

Even if appellant had been subject to an illegal arrest, he would not be entitled to the suppression of the evidence because the police station arrest had not been the fruit of the bicycle detention.
The court held that when the connection between illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, the evidence will not be excluded. Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805 (1984). In 1984, the Court first recognized the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule in Nix v. Williams and held that if the prosecution can establish that evidence unlawfully seized would have been discovered by lawful means, the exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence is still admissible. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence obtained by illegal means is still admissible if it would have been obtained by the …show more content…
First, the evidence is admissible even if it is obtained as a result of a warrant that is wanting in probable cause or is technically defective so long as the authorities have relied in objective good faith on a facially valid warrant. Leon, 468 U.S. at 897; Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 982 (1984). Second, the exclusionary rule is not employed when the nexus between the illegal police activity and attainment of the evidence is sufficiently attenuated so that the taint resulting from the misconduct is dissipated. Wong Sun, 83 S.Ct. at 417. Third, the evidence is not excluded if the government obtained it from a source independent of the illegality. Silverthorne Lumber Co., 251 U.S. at 386. Finally, the rule does not exclude evidence that inevitably would have been discovered lawfully. Nix, 467 U.S. at