Reasoning that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applies when the facts indicate that, despite the presence of police misconduct, a search warrant would have inevitably been issued, the court concluded that the fourth amendment does not require the suppression of evidence first observed during a warrantless search. This ruling ignores a purpose of the search warrant requirement, which is to lessen the incidence of unreasonable searches by having a neutral and detached magistrate determine probable cause before a search occurs. The court should not have applied the balancing test of 'Nix' to a warrantless search case. Instead, it should have followed the Second Circuit in United States v. Segura, which excluded evidence first observed during an illegal entry but admitted evidence first observed during the subsequent legal search. Under the 'Segura' standard, a police officer's knowledge that evidence observed during an illegal entry is inadmissible deters them from entering illegally. 66 footnotes.