467 U.S. 431 (1984)
On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to watch an athletic contest.1
Williams was seen leaving the YMCA carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket.2 A fourteen-year-old boy who helped open his car door reported seeing two skinny white legs inside it.3
Williams' car was found the next day 160 miles east in Davenport, Iowa.4 Items of the child's clothing along with an army blanket were recovered at a rest stop on Interstate 80 near Grinnell between Des Moines and Davenport.5
A warrant issued for Williams' arrest.6 On December 26 the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation organized a search with two hundred volunteers divided into teams that began twenty-one miles east of Grinnell and moved westward through Poweshiek County into Jasper County.7 Searchers checked all roads, ditches, culverts, abandoned farm buildings, and other places where a small child's body could be hidden.8 The search area was marked off in grids on highway maps.9
Williams surrendered to police in Davenport and was arraigned.10 After his attorneys arranged for no questioning during transport, two Des Moines detectives took him into custody for the return drive.11
During the trip Detective Leaming spoke to Williams about predicted snow and the parents' right to a Christian burial.12 Williams then directed the officers to the child's shoes, the blanket, and ultimately the body itself.13
The body lay next to a culvert in a ditch beside a gravel road in Polk County.14 It was roughly two and one-half miles from where one search team had stopped when the search was suspended at 3 p.m.15
Williams was indicted for first-degree murder.16 At his first trial the evidence of the body was admitted over objection.17 He was convicted.18 The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.19 The United States Supreme Court reversed in Brewer v. Williams on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.20
At the second trial in 1977 the prosecution introduced evidence of the condition of the body, articles and photographs of clothing, and autopsy results without offering Williams' statements or showing that he had directed police to the body.21 The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition by the continuing search.22 The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.
On federal habeas corpus the District Court denied relief after an independent review.23 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.24 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.25
Whether evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victim's body was properly admitted at respondent Williams' second murder trial on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional or statutory provision had taken place?26
The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applies where the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.27 The doctrine is an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine and is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.28
Yes. The prosecution met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition as it was found.29 The search teams were within two and one-half miles of the body when the search was suspended at 3 p.m. Agent Ruxlow testified that the grid system would have taken the teams into Polk County where the body lay next to a culvert.30 Testimony established that the body would have been found in a matter of hours or at most a few days given the weather conditions and the number of volunteers.31
The State therefore satisfied the requirements of the inevitable discovery doctrine.32
The evidence of the body's location and condition is admissible because it would have been discovered inevitably by lawful means.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White concurred in the Court’s opinion.34 He emphasized that the inevitable discovery exception is a logical extension of prior cases. The prosecution should not be put in a worse position simply because of police error or misconduct that did not affect the ultimate discovery of the evidence.35
White noted that Brewer v. Williams was a 5-4 decision, with four members of the Court viewing Detective Leaming's conduct as not unconstitutional at all.36 He defended Leaming as acting as many competent police officers would have acted under the then-existing law.37 That five Justices later thought he was mistaken does not call for making him out to be a villain or for a lecture on deliberate police misconduct.38
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment.39 He emphasized that the burden on the prosecution to prove inevitable discovery must be a heavy one.40 In close cases, the exclusionary rule should be applied to deter violations of constitutional rights.41
Here, however, the evidence that the search parties would inevitably have found the body is overwhelming.42 The search was well organized, the weather conditions were favorable for continuing the search, and the body was located in an area that was within the search grid and near where searchers were actively looking.43
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented.44 He argued that the inevitable discovery doctrine adopted by the Court allows the prosecution to use evidence obtained through a constitutional violation if it can show that the evidence would have been discovered anyway.45 This exception threatens to swallow the rule.46
The exclusionary rule is not merely a tool to deter police misconduct; it is a constitutional requirement that flows from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.47 In this case, the police deliberately violated Williams’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel by eliciting incriminating statements from him during transport.48 The body was found only because of those statements.49
The search parties had not yet found the body, and it is speculative to say that they inevitably would have.50 The majority’s conclusion rests on a hypothetical scenario that can never be proven with certainty.51