With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that her statement plays no part in this appeal. 2 . The district court also relied on the "inevitable discovery” doctrine, under which unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if it "ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); see also United States v. Gale, 952 F.2d 1412 (D.C.Cir.1992). The government based its inevitability claim on the testimony of Officer Maradiaga and Sergeant Caldwell, each of whom testified that, but for Maradiaga's mistake about consent, he would have stopped the search and sought a warrant. We are dubious that such conjectural testimony is adequate to support applying the doctrine to this case. See Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, while the circuits disagree over

A: holding that dismissal for discovery violations was an extreme remedy but warranted under the facts of the case
B: holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances
C: holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
D: holding that inevitable discovery involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment
D.