In adopting the doctrine of inevitable discovery in Nix, the Supreme Court debated the fundamental reasoning behind that doctrine. The reason for the inevitable detection exception is the flip side of the exclusion rule – the purpose of the exclusion rule is to prevent the police from violating constitutional and legal rights. In other words, it ensures that the police are no better off than they would have been if they had refrained from illegal behaviour. At the same time, there are conflicting interests on the other side of the scales – above all, the public interest in having access to all the evidence of a crime and not releasing the culprits. v. United States, long before the adoption of the inevitable doctrine of discovery. But in Nix, the Court expressly stated that the reasoning behind the independent source rule – balancing competing interests by placing the police in the same position, not worse, in which they would have been in but for illegality – was applied with equal force to justify the inevitable discovery exception.  In Mobley v. The Supreme Court of Georgia has highlighted how the doctrine of unavoidable discovery could interact with the growing scope of government protections against inappropriate search and seizure in the digital context. In this case, officers seized data from the defendant`s automobile system showing that he was driving at nearly 100 miles per hour and was likely responsible for the deaths of both people in the car with which he collided. They only received an arrest warrant for the data afterwards.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that police violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to obtain a warrant before accessing vehicle data, and that the doctrine of inevitable discovery did not apply: it argued that police showed no indication of plans to obtain a warrant before the data was deleted. and that the police service had no policy or practice. obtain this data after a fatal accident.   The Court also took the opportunity of Nix to resolve a dispute concerning the relevance of bad faith to the applicability of the inevitable doctrine of discovery. Many have argued that, despite court assurances in the Nix case, the inevitable investigative rule not only allows but encourages law enforcement to commit wrongdoing, such as creating a simple «I could have obtained an arrest warrant» excuse for a warrantless search.  Professor Robert Bloom criticizes the Nix Court for unduly minimizing the «negative effects that the inevitable discovery exception would have on the deterrent logic of the exclusionary rule»; He postulated that the Supreme Court had overlooked the immense incentives the exception would create to conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures in the context of the Fourth Amendment, since Nix itself is a Sixth Amendment case.  Unavoidable disclosure is a legal doctrine under which an employer may invoke trade secret to prohibit a former employee from working in a workplace that may lead to the use of trade secrets without the need for evidence. The lower federal courts are divided on whether the doctrine of unavoidable discovery can only be applied if the investigation that would have inevitably led to the discovery was already underway when the illegality occurred, or whether the government`s assertion that it initiated such an investigation is sufficient.   For example, the Eighth Judicial District required that «at the time of the constitutional violation, the government actively pursued another line of substantive investigation» for the exception to apply.
  Meanwhile, the Tenth Judicial District has stated that «the inevitable discovery exception of discovery of discovery applies whenever an independent investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of evidence, whether or not the investigation was ongoing at the time of the unlawful police conduct.»   In Tenth Circuit United States v. Cunningham, the respondent argued that evidence from his home suggesting he was guilty of cheque forgery should be removed because the police did not have a warrant and his consent to the search was forced. Although the police were not in the process of obtaining an arrest warrant at the time of the search (they had abandoned their plans to obtain an arrest warrant in favour of continuous surveillance), the court held that the officers could inevitably have obtained a search warrant for the house and would therefore be entitled to the exception.  In criminal proceedings, the unavoidable disclosure rule allows for the admissibility of evidence that would otherwise be subject to suppression if the state can prove that the evidence would have inevitably and lawfully been discovered by lawful means. The defining case of the rule of inevitable discovery is Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), in which the Supreme Court upheld the application of the exception to the rule of exclusion of unavoidable discovery. In that case, the defendant admitted the whereabouts of his deceased victim in response to the police plea. However, the confession was made without the presence of a lawyer, and when police finally found the victim, the accused was convicted of first-degree murder. The defendant requested that the evidence be suppressed on the grounds that the admission violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Court rejected this view on the ground that the State did not require proof of good faith in order to benefit from the inevitable exception of discovery. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police from obtaining evidence unlawfully.
However, the rule of inevitable discovery would not violate that objective. Most states have followed the Supreme Court`s lead in terms of standard of proof, applying a balance of standard of proof to inevitable discovery.  But some states have chosen to apply the stricter and more persuasive standard and side with Justice Brennan`s dissenting opinion in Nix.