in each case ‘[t]he core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occu idence obtained following an unconstitutionally intercepted voicemail message was sufficiently far from the initial illegality because the message was merely a lead in the investigation and did not “significantly direct” the police to the discovery of the challenged evidence). Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, “if, ‘by following routine procedures, the police would inevitably have uncovered the [challenged] evidence,’ then that evidence will not be suppressed despite any constitutional violation.” United States v. Young, 573 F.3d 711, 721 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d at 1399); United States v. Andrade, 784 F.2d 1431, 1433 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1047-48
holding that the polices potentially unconstitutional search incident to the defendants arrest did not affect the challenged evidences admissibility because the police would have found the evidence which was contained in the defendants garment bag while taking inventory of the defendants belongings and booking him in conjunction with his arrest for the underlying incident holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene holding that drugs seized from defendants person and automobile trunk based on statements taken without miranda warnings would inevitably have been discovered in a search incident to arrest and a postimpoundment inventory search