Whether the exclusionary rule applies when police violate a suspect's Constitutional Rights multiple times during a continuous interrogation, and whether inevitable discovery can be proven through testimony of a non-involved detective

1. Can inevitable discovery, as set forth by This Court in Nix V. Williams, be proven through the testimony of a detective not actively involved in the investigation? 2. Should the exclusionary rule be applied when police violate a suspect's Constitutional Rights no less than twenty-five times in one continuous interrogation? 3. Are police free to disregard a suspect's Constitutional Rights when in pursuit of evidence?