What is the standard of review for a motion to suppress or suppress evidence?

the evidence that the information would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means." (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1040) "As this is essentially a question of fact, we must uphold the trial court's determination if supported by substantial evidence." (Ibid.) Thus, under the appropriate standard of review, we look for evidence supporting the inevitability of discovery. But here, an evidentiary record is completely missing. The record does not even contain evidence that the police officer asked defendant for the combination to the safe. And the prosecution did not have a fair opportunity to present evidence supporting application of the inevitable discovery doctrine. Defendant sprang the oral motion in limine on the prosecution without notice, without evidence, and without briefing. As the trial court observed during the hearing, "As far as a motion to suppress evidence, first of all, you are in complete violation of rule 800. There has been no notice, it hasn't been calendared, litigated, briefed. Both of [you] guys announced ready for trial. We are in the tail end of 402's."