1. In order the apply the "inevitable discovery rule" to uphold an otherwise illegal search and
seizure is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the alleged alternative police conduct was an
ongoing legitimate investigation that was simultaneously occurring at the time that the improper
conduct took place and had brought the police to the brink of discovering the disputed evidence
when that misconduct occurred?

2. Is it improper to apply the "inevitable discovery rule" to uphold an otherwise illegal
warrantless search and seizure where the only conceivable claim is that the police hypothetically
could have sought and obtained a search warrant at some later date after the occurrence of the
misconduct that could have allowed the police to conduct that search and seizure even though the
police at the time of the illegal warrantless search and seizure were not even thinking of obtaining,
or even trying to obtain, a search warrant?

Whether the prosecution must prove that the alleged alternative police conduct was an ongoing legitimate investigation simultaneously occurring at the time of the improper conduct to apply the inevitable discovery rule