In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence might be admitted if what condition is met?

• A. It would have been allowed in most states
• B. Members of a jury gave it no attention
• C. It was discovered on the basis of a tip from a reliable informant
• D. Its discovery was inevitable

Answer: (D)

The key idea is the inevitable discovery doctrine: illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if it would have been found anyway through lawful means. The correct condition is that its discovery was inevitable. This means that, even without the illegal action, the investigation was already on track to uncover the evidence through legitimate steps, so excluding it would not serve the purpose of deterring misconduct or protecting the integrity of the process. The ruling reflects a balance between upholding the truth-seeking goal of trials and recognizing that if the same evidence would have been discovered lawfully, excluding it would not effectively deter police behavior.

Why the other options don’t fit: an average state practice doesn’t determine admissibility, and jury attention isn’t relevant to the rule. Relying on a tip from a reliable informant doesn’t automatically make the evidence admissible under inevitable discovery; that rule requires proof that lawful discovery was inevitable regardless of the illegality.