Explain the 'inevitable discovery doctrine' and provide an example of how it can be applied to admit evidence that was initially illegally obtained.

The 'inevitable discovery doctrine' is an exception to the Exclusionary Rule, which generally prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in court. This doctrine allows evidence to be admitted if the prosecution can demonstrate that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through lawful means, regardless of the illegal conduct. The key is that the discovery must be truly inevitable; it cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. The prosecution must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legal means of discovery were already underway or would have certainly been initiated, and that those efforts would have led to the discovery of the evidence. For example, suppose police illegally enter a suspect's apartment without a warrant and find a kidnapped victim. Even though the initial entry was illegal, if the police had already obtained a warrant based on probable cause to search the apartment, and the warrant was in the process of being executed when the illegal entry occurred, the 'inevitable discovery doctrine' could apply. The prosecution could argue that the victim would have inevitably been discovered when the warrant was executed. In this case, the victim's discovery and any evidence related to the kidnapping might be admissible, despite the initial illegal entry, because the lawful execution of the warrant would have inevitably led to the same discovery. The prosecution would need to demonstrate that the warrant was valid, that its execution was imminent, and that the scope of the warrant would have authorized the search that led to the victim's discovery.