Does inevitable discovery require an independent alternative investigation that is in progress at the time of the illegal search?

For nearly four decades, courts have grappled with interpreting the inevitable discovery doctrine . Some courts , including the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits , require the prosecution to prove that law enforcement was actively pursuing an alternative line of investigation at the time of the illegal conduct. In contrast, the First, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits reject the active pursuit requirement, instead focusing on whether discovery would have occurred inevitably, regardless of ongoing police efforts. In this capital case, law enforcement violated Ian Mitcham’s Fourth Amendment rights when they developed a DNA profile from blood obtained for the limited purpose of a misdemeanor driving -under -the-influence investigation . But t he Arizona Supreme Court applied the inevitable discovery doctrine and declined to adopt an active pursuit requirement . Instead, relying on a “broad view” of the inevitable discovery doctrine, the court concluded that Ian’s DNA would have inevitably been discovered through two felony convictions —entered more than four years after the unlawful search , and under the pressure of a pending death penalty case. Does inevitable discovery require an independent alternative investigation that is in progress at the time of the illegal search?