CFE Question of the Day: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Quiz Yazan Ibrahim
CFE 2026 Master Prep Bundle with Fraud Exam Books, Digital Tablet, and Smartwatch.

CFE exam practice question — CFE Question of the Day: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

CFE exam practice question: daily practice for the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) exam — domain: Law.

Question

An internal auditor, without authorization, opens an employee’s shared drive and sees a folder of suspicious invoices. The company runs an automated compliance scan every night; the scan would have flagged those same invoices the following morning and prompted a lawful search that produced a warrant-based seizure. The defendant moves to suppress the seized invoices. Which doctrine most directly supports admitting the invoices into evidence?

  • A. Admission under the inevitable discovery doctrine, because the routine automated compliance scan would have discovered the invoices by lawful means.
  • B. Admission under the independent source doctrine, because the later warrant-authorized search was based on information separate from the auditor’s viewing.
  • C. Admission under the attenuation doctrine, because the time gap between the unauthorized viewing and the later seizure purged the taint of the initial illegality.
  • D. Admission based on the employee’s subsequent consent to the search, which cured the constitutional defect caused by the initial unauthorized access.
Show the answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Admission under the inevitable discovery doctrine, because the routine automated compliance scan would have discovered the invoices by lawful means.

The correct answer is the inevitable discovery doctrine: if the prosecution can show the automated compliance scan would have uncovered the invoices by lawful procedures regardless of the unauthorized viewing, courts may admit the evidence. Independent source is incorrect here because it requires an actual, independent discovery of the evidence untainted by the illegal act; inevitability focuses on whether lawful procedures would have discovered the item even if the illegal search had not occurred. Attenuation is wrong because mere passage of time or intervening events must significantly break the causal chain from illegality to discovery, which is unlikely when a preexisting automated process would have found the evidence. Consent is incorrect because later consent must be voluntary and unconnected to the taint; the scenario does not establish a valid, untainted post hoc consent.

Want more practice?

Prepare for the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) exam with New Material: CFE 2026 Prep Bundle.