With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 93 F.3d 555, 561 (9th Cir.1996) (emphasis in original). “The inevitable discovery doctrine does not, however, allow admission of the unconstitutional incul-patory statement itself.” Id. The rationale, behind this distinction is self-evident. Absent intentional spoliation, physical evidence is tangible and fixed. While it is movable, it is not transmutable. The same can never be said of statements. “A tangible object is hard evidence, and absent its removal will remain where left until discovered. In contrast, a statement not yet made is, by its very nature, evanescent and ephemeral. Should the conditions under which it was made change, even but a little, there could be no assurance the statement would be the same.” United States v. Vasquez De Reyes, 149 F.3d 192, 195 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the distinction between physical

A: holding that statements acquired as a result of an illegal stop were not admissible under inevitable discovery doctrine
B: recognizing inevitable discovery exception under fourth amendment
C: holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution
D: holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
A.