inevitable discovery doctrine in California

2026The harmless-constitutional-error rule ‘[serves] a 11 very useful purpose insofar as [it] [blocks] setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’ The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to block setting aside convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” (People v. Nix (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 443, fn. 4 .) As previously discussed, the application for the second search warrant was supported by a showing of probable cause to search the apartment for the missing power tools.

2022(Tully, at p. 979.)” (People v. Mathews (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 130, 137 (Mathews).) 3 Overruled on another ground as stated in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 637-643 and People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912 , 919–920. 4 We need not, and do not, decide whether the warrantless search of the vehicle immediately following defendant’s arrest was lawful, as we agree with the Attorney General that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies.4 “[E]vidence that has been illegally obtained need not always be suppressed.” (Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 441 (Nix).) “ ‘The inevitable disco

2020The inevitable discovery doctrine acts as an exception to the exclusionary rule, and permits the admission of otherwise excluded evidence “if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police.” (Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 447 , (Nix ).) The purpose of the exception is “to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800 .) It is the prosecution's burden to “establish by a prepo

2020(See Nix v. Williams, supra, 467 U.S. 431 ; People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 800-801.) “Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means.

2020It is unnecessary to discuss these claims relating specifically to the underlying search and seizure because we conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. 46 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. police misconduct.” (People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 800 ; see People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 62 [rule ensures prosecution “is not placed in a better position” absent the illegality but “does not require it be put in a worse one”].) The inevitable discovery rule “applies only to evidence obtained as the indirect product, or fruit, of other evidence

2020It is unnecessary to discuss these claims relating specifically to the underlying search and seizure because we conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. 46 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. police misconduct.” (People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 800 ; see People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 62 [rule ensures prosecution “is not placed in a better position” absent the illegality but “does not require it be put in a worse one”].) The inevitable discovery rule “applies only to evidence obtained as the indirect product, or fruit, of other evidence

2014In Green, after obtaining consent, police seized the defendant’s coveralls from a supply area in a parking garage where the defendant worked as a janitor. ( Green, supra, 40 Cal.3d 126, 130-132 .) In a fractured opinion, two justices concluded that the defendant was unlawfully in custody when he consented to the seizure, but that the record provided factual support for application of the inevitable discovery doctrine to justify the seizure.1 (Id. at p. 136.) Even though the parties “made only oblique reference to that doctrine at the suppression hearing” (id. at p. 137, fn. +8.), the justices

2014In Green, after obtaining consent, police seized the defendant’s coveralls from a supply area in a parking garage where the defendant worked as a janitor. ( Green, supra, 40 Cal.3d 126, 130-132 .) In a fractured opinion, two justices concluded that the defendant was unlawfully in custody when he consented to the seizure, but that the record provided factual support for application of the inevitable discovery doctrine to justify the seizure.1 (Id. at p. 136.) Even though the parties “made only oblique reference to that doctrine at the suppression hearing” (id. at p. 137, fn. +8.), the justices

2025Inevitable Discovery Our Supreme Court has explained: “ ‘Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means. . . . [T]he doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” (Murray v. United States (1988) 487 U.S. 533, 539 .)’ . . . [¶] The inevitable discovery rule ‘applies only to evidence obtained as

2025Inevitable Discovery Our Supreme Court has explained: “ ‘Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means. . . . [T]he doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” (Murray v. United States (1988) 487 U.S. 533, 539 .)’ . . . [¶] The inevitable discovery rule ‘applies only to evidence obtained as

2023The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147 , 183–184.) “The inevitable discovery exception requires the court “‘to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 .) The prosecution “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that, due to a separate line of in

2023The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147 , 183–184.) “The inevitable discovery exception requires the court “‘to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 .) The prosecution “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that, due to a separate line of in

2020The inevitable discovery doctrine acts as an exception to the exclusionary rule, and permits the admission of otherwise excluded evidence “if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police.” (Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 447 , (Nix ).) The purpose of the exception is “to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800 .) It is the prosecution's burden to “establish by a prepo

2020It is unnecessary to discuss these claims relating specifically to the underlying search and seizure because we conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. 46 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. police misconduct.” (People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 800 ; see People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 62 [rule ensures prosecution “is not placed in a better position” absent the illegality but “does not require it be put in a worse one”].) The inevitable discovery rule “applies only to evidence obtained as the indirect product, or fruit, of other evidence

2021(See, e.g., U.S. v. Boatwright (9th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 862 , 864–865.) We have not relied upon these items and still agree with the trial court’s conclusion as to the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine and denial of defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence.

2021(U.S. v. Boatwright, supra, 822 F.2d at p. 864 [“The existence of two independent investigations at the time of discovery is not, therefore, a necessary predicate to the inevitable discovery exception.”].) 16.

2021The showing must be based not on speculation but on ‘demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or 13 People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 (Hughston) cited Nix, supra, 467 U.S. at pages 449 through 450 as an example where a separate line of investigation established the inevitable discovery of the evidence. 14 Hughston provided two examples where the application of routine police procedures established the inevitable discovery of the evidence. ( Hughston, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1072–1073, citing United States v. Andrade (9th Cir.1986) 784 F.2d 1431, 1433

2016Even assuming respondent superior court properly determined that under the totality of the circumstances Katz had not voluntarily consented to submit to a blood test, we conclude that suppression of the BAC test results is not required based on the inevitable discovery doctrine.1 “The inevitable discovery doctrine acts as an exception to the exclusionary rule, and permits the admission of otherwise excluded evidence ‘if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police.’ (Nix v. W

2023The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147 , 183–184.) “The inevitable discovery exception requires the court “‘to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 .) The prosecution “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that, due to a separate line of in

2023The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147 , 183–184.) “The inevitable discovery exception requires the court “‘to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 .) The prosecution “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that, due to a separate line of in

2004Inevitable Discovery While application of either exigency or the substantial compliance doctrine offers a sufficient basis for affirming the judgment, I believe it necessary to comment on my colleagues' inevitable discovery analysis. *222 The majority elects to address whether the inevitable discovery rule applies to cases involving knock and notice violations. [3] In so doing, my colleagues hold (1) the showing necessary for inevitable discovery to apply can seldom be made in the context of knock and notice violations, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine should not apply to knock and notice

2004Inevitable Discovery While application of either exigency or the substantial compliance doctrine offers a sufficient basis for affirming the judgment, I believe it necessary to comment on my colleagues' inevitable discovery analysis. *222 The majority elects to address whether the inevitable discovery rule applies to cases involving knock and notice violations. [3] In so doing, my colleagues hold (1) the showing necessary for inevitable discovery to apply can seldom be made in the context of knock and notice violations, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine should not apply to knock and notice

2021The showing must be based not on speculation but on ‘demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or 13 People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072 (Hughston) cited Nix, supra, 467 U.S. at pages 449 through 450 as an example where a separate line of investigation established the inevitable discovery of the evidence. 14 Hughston provided two examples where the application of routine police procedures established the inevitable discovery of the evidence. ( Hughston, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1072–1073, citing United States v. Andrade (9th Cir.1986) 784 F.2d 1431, 1433

2016Even assuming respondent superior court properly determined that under the totality of the circumstances Katz had not voluntarily consented to submit to a blood test, we conclude that suppression of the BAC test results is not required based on the inevitable discovery doctrine.1 “The inevitable discovery doctrine acts as an exception to the exclusionary rule, and permits the admission of otherwise excluded evidence ‘if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police.’ (Nix v. W

2016(See People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 449 ; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 801, fn. 7 (Robles); Green v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126, 137-138 (Green); People v. Limon (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 524, 539 .) 5 exception. ([People v. Superior Court (Walker) (2006)] 143 Cal.App.4th 1183 ,] 1215 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 831 ].) A violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be disregarded ‘ “simply because the police, had they thought about the situation more carefully, could have come up with a lawful means of achieving their desired results.” [Citation.]’ (Id. at p. 1216, fn. 30 [ 49 Cal.R

2008(Walker, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215.) A violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be disregarded “ ‘simply because the police, had they thought about the situation more carefully, could have come up with a lawful means of achieving their desired results.’ [Citation.]” (Walker, at p. 1216, fn. 30; see also People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 801 [inevitable discovery exception inapplicable even accepting that police could have obtained a warrant based on plain view of stolen car in garage]; U.S. v. Reilly (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 986, 995 [“ ‘to excuse the failure to obtain a warra

2017(U.S. v. Lundin (9th Cir. 2016) 817 F.3d 1151 (Lundin); U.S. v. Mejia (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F.3d 309, 320 ; U.S. v. Echegoyen (9th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 1271, 1280, fn. 7 .) The Court of Appeals has explained, “This court has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a warrant.

2012(Echegoyen, supra, 799 F.2d at p. 1280, fn. 7 ; see also U.S. v. Mejia (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F.3d 309, 320 [court explained it “has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a warrant”].) Nonetheless, the People’s argument in this case is not that the shell casing and depression found under the victim’s body would have inevitably been discovered because they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant but failed to get one.

2025Inevitable Discovery Our Supreme Court has explained: “ ‘Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means. . . . [T]he doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” (Murray v. United States (1988) 487 U.S. 533, 539 .)’ . . . [¶] The inevitable discovery rule ‘applies only to evidence obtained as

2025Inevitable Discovery Our Supreme Court has explained: “ ‘Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means. . . . [T]he doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” (Murray v. United States (1988) 487 U.S. 533, 539 .)’ . . . [¶] The inevitable discovery rule ‘applies only to evidence obtained as

2018The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800 .) “The test is not whether ‘the police would have certainly discovered the tainted evidence, rather, it is only necessary to show a reasonably strong probability that they would have.’ [Citations.]” (In re Rudy F. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1136 .) If the officer had complied with the letter of the implied consent law by giving the statutory advisement and appellant had chosen a breath t

2018The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to prevent the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800 .) “The test is not whether ‘the police would have certainly discovered the tainted evidence, rather, it is only necessary to show a reasonably strong probability that they would have.’ [Citations.]” (In re Rudy F. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1136 .) If the officer had complied with the letter of the implied consent law by giving the statutory advisement and appellant had chosen a breath t

2017(Wong Sun, supra, 371 U.S. at p. 488 ; see also U.S. v. Boatwright (9th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 862, 864-865 [the inevitable discovery doctrine “requires that the fact or likelihood that makes the discovery inevitable arise from circumstances other than those disclosed by the illegal search itself’].) Accordingly, the People have not demonstrated that the search warrant was issued based on independent probable cause, and they have not established any error in the trial court’s ruling that the evidence obtained in the warrantless June 9 search of Corbett’s home must be suppressed. *695 DISPOSITION

1984An alternative ground for the admissibility of Javier's statements to the police is the doctrine of inevitable discovery. (7) In determining whether evidence is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and therefore inadmissible, the correct inquiry is "`"whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint."'" ( Krauss v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 418, 422 [ 96 Cal. Rptr. 455 , 487 P.2d 1023 ]; Wong Sun v. Un

2015"It has long been established that even if a criminal investigation involved some illegal conduct, courts will admit evidence derived from an 'independent source.' " (People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073, 1077 (Weiss), quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) 251 U.S. 385, 392 .) "In a case involving the inevitable discovery rule, a close relative of the independent source doctrine, the United States Supreme Court 15 explained the basis for admitting evidence derived from a source independent of illegal conduct. 'The core rationale consistently advanced by this Court for exten

1999Relying on Murray v. United States (1988) 487 U.S. 533 [ 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 ] (Murray) and People v. Koch, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d 770 , defendant argues that the reviewing court is additionally “required to make a factual determination that the magistrate issuing the search warrant was not affected by illegally obtained information contained in the affidavit in support of the warrant.” It has long been established that even if a criminal investigation involved some illegal conduct, courts will admit evidence derived from an “independent source.” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United

1999“Notwithstanding the Court’s acceptance of the inevitable discovery doctrine, it makes no sense whatsoever to take the substantially broader step of suggesting that a violation of the Fourth Amendment may be disregarded simply because the police, had they thought about the situation more carefully, could have come up with a lawful means of achieving their desired results.” (5 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3d ed. 1996) Exclusionary Rule: Administration, § 11.49(f), p. 306, fn. omitted.) See also Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at page 376 [107 S.Ct. at pag

1999"Notwithstanding the Court's acceptance of the inevitable discovery doctrine, it makes no sense whatsoever to take the substantially broader step of suggesting that a violation of the Fourth Amendment may be disregarded simply because the police, had they thought about the situation more carefully, could have come up with a lawful means of achieving their desired results." (5 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3d ed.1996) Exclusionary Rule: Administration, § 11.49(f), p. 306, fn. omitted.) [2] See also Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at page 376 , 107 S.Ct. 73

2015"It has long been established that even if a criminal investigation involved some illegal conduct, courts will admit evidence derived from an 'independent source.' " (People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073, 1077 (Weiss), quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) 251 U.S. 385, 392 .) "In a case involving the inevitable discovery rule, a close relative of the independent source doctrine, the United States Supreme Court 15 explained the basis for admitting evidence derived from a source independent of illegal conduct. 'The core rationale consistently advanced by this Court for exten

2014(People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800-801 .) The California Supreme Court in People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073, 1079-1080 , explained two findings are required to avoid the suppression of such evidence: (1) that after the unlawfully obtained information is excised from the affidavit, “probable cause remains to support the warrant; and [(2)] the officers would have sought the warrant without the illegally obtained information.” (Id. at p. 1077.) The affidavit supporting the search warrant cannot contain information “derived from unlawful conduct as well as other, untainted, informat

2024(Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 443-444 ; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 62 ; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800-801 .) “As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the doctrine ‘is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source 13 doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.’ [Citation.]” (Robles, at p. 800, italics omitted.) Inventory searches of police-impounded cars are “a well-defined exception to the warrant

2020(Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 440-450 ; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800-801 .) Section 1538.5 provides a defendant the “sole and exclusive” means before trial to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure. (§ 1538.5, subd. (m); see People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 127 .) “[D]efendants have the burden of (1) asserting the search or seizure was without a warrant, and (2) explaining why it was unreasonable under the circumstances.” (Williams, at p. 129.) However, the burden is on the prosecution to prove evidence seized during a warrantless search f

2021(See, e.g., People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950 , 992–993 [“We need not address the merits of defendant’s contentions relating to the existence or absence of probable cause … because we conclude the doctrine of inevitable discovery would validate the lower court’s ruling in any event.”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) “ ‘Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally seized evidence may be used where it would have been discovered by the police through lawful means.… [T]he doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent

2000Although the inevitable discovery doctrine was not presented to the trial court below, it may be applied on appeal if the factual basis for the theory is fully set forth in the record, (Green v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126, 137-138 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 186 , 707 P.2d 248 ]; see People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 993, fn. 19 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ].) The People claim the stolen car was openly visible through a hole in the garage door.

2017(U.S. v. Lundin (9th Cir. 2016) 817 F.3d 1151 (Lundin); U.S. v. Mejia (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F.3d 309, 320 ; U.S. v. Echegoyen (9th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 1271, 1280, fn. 7 .) The Court of Appeals has explained, “This court has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a warrant.

2012(Echegoyen, supra, 799 F.2d at p. 1280, fn. 7 ; see also U.S. v. Mejia (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F.3d 309, 320 [court explained it “has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a warrant”].) Nonetheless, the People’s argument in this case is not that the shell casing and depression found under the victim’s body would have inevitably been discovered because they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant but failed to get one.

2016The showing must be based not on speculation but on ‘demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment.’ ( Nix, supra, 467 U.S. at pp. 444-445, fn. 5.) The inevitable discovery exception requires the court ‘ “to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.” ’ (U.S. v. Cabassa (2d Cir. 1995) 62 F.3d 470, 473 .)” (Hughston, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1072 .) We find People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036 (Rich), although not cited by the parties, is both instructive

2008The showing must be based not on speculation but on “demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment.” ( Nix, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 444-445, fn. 5.) The inevitable discovery exception requires the court “ ‘to determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.’ ” (U.S. v. Cabassa (2d Cir. 1995) 62 F.3d 470, 473 .) For example, in Nix , police officers discovered the location and condition of the victim’s body through an unlawful interrogation of the defendant, but the

2016(Id. at pp. 1071, 1073-1074.) Moreover, the People provided no evidence that Hughston’s companions “would not have gained access to the interior of the Hummer and removed or destroyed the drugs.” (Id. at p. 1073.) 10 Similarly, in People v. Bennett, supra, 17 Cal.4th 373 , a majority of our Supreme Court rejected the view of a concurring justice that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.

2016(Id. at pp. 1071, 1073-1074.) Moreover, the People provided no evidence that Hughston’s companions “would not have gained access to the interior of the Hummer and removed or destroyed the drugs.” (Id. at p. 1073.) 10 Similarly, in People v. Bennett, supra, 17 Cal.4th 373 , a majority of our Supreme Court rejected the view of a concurring justice that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.