Which doctrine allows admission of evidence obtained from an independent, lawful source even if the initial search was illegal?

• A. Fruit of the poisonous tree
• B. Inevitable discovery
• C. Independent source doctrine
• D. Consent

Answer: (C)

The independent source doctrine rests on the idea that evidence can be admitted if there is a separate, lawful path to it that is independent of any illegal search. If investigators later obtain the same evidence through a legitimate means that has nothing to do with the tainted search, that evidence isn’t suppressed simply because the initial search was illegal. The key is that the later discovery would have occurred through the lawful channel regardless of the illegal act.

For example, if police illegally enter a place and learn something, but later another, independent investigation or search (unconnected to that illegal act) uncovers the same evidence through a legitimate warrant or lawful procedure, that evidence can be admitted.

Why the other ideas don’t fit here: the fruit of the poisonous tree concept would suppress evidence obtained as a direct result of the illegal search. The inevitable discovery doctrine would let in evidence only if it would have been discovered lawfully anyway, even without the illegal act, but it doesn’t require an independent source. The consent doctrine hinges on voluntary, valid permission to search, not on separate lawful channels to the same evidence.