With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment.” United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566, 577 (6th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court and our circuit have applied the doctrine in several cases where, like this one, a potentially illegal search was followed by a search conducted in accordance with a valid search warrant premised on evidence of probable cause developed independently of the initial search. See, e.g., Murray, 487 U.S. at 541-43, 108 S.Ct. 2529 (remanding case for consideration of the inevitable-discovery doctrine where police conducted an initial, illegal search and later conducted a second, legal search in which they seized marijuana); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 813-16, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557,

A: 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
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding that contraband would have been inevitably discovered where agents conducted a warrantless search while obtaining a search warrant and later conducted a second legal search in which agents discovered contraband
D: holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted
C.