justified based on probable cause and exigent circumstances was “not relevant to the admissibility of the challenged evidence [because hjaving been seized under a warrant with a basis independent of the entry, the evidence was admissible.” Id. at 309. In reaching this conclusion, the Second District specifically relied on Segura, 468 U.S. at 813-14, 104 S.Ct. 3380, which held that evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant that is based on information known to police before the illegal entry and that is wholly unrelated to entry is not tainted. Mercier, 579 So.2d at 309. Numerous decisions have likewise found evidence obtained after unconstitutional police actions admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. See Cummings v. State, 956 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. State, 868 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Fla.
holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred holding that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine as that doctrine requires the state to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the police ultimately would have discovered the evidence independently of the improper police conduct by means of normal investigative measures that inevitably would have been set in motion as a matter of routine police procedure  quoting craig v state 510 so2d 857 863 fla1987 holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct holding that the government must proffer clear evidence of an independent untainted investigation that inevitably would have uncovered the same evidence as that discovered through the illegal search holding that information of other conduct by the investigating police officer was not material under brady because the information would not have been admissible under fedrevid 608b as it would have been extrinsic evidence impeaching the witness on collateral matters