Can evidence obtained in an illegal search be used as evidence in a criminal trial?

Answer 1

No.

Another View: The above is not a 100% factual answer. Where the law is concerned never say "never!"

1. Virtually every defense attorney is going to challenge '''any''' evidence against their client as "fruit of the poisoned tree" whether it was illegally obtained, or not, and make the prosecution document the steps taken in recovering it.
2. The defense MUST challenge it as inadmissible.
3. There ARE cases where evidence challenged as "illegally obtained" HAS been ruled admissible, either by the trial court or, subsequently, on appeal.

Yes, evidence obtained by an illegal search can possibly be admitted as evidence. While the default assumption is that all evidence obtained as a part of a search which is ruled illegal is inadmissible, there is a large exception. If the prosecution can show inevitable discovery of the evidence, then it can be admitted. Inevitable discovery is a concept where the discovery of the evidence would have happened during subsequent searches which were not performed because the evidence was discovered in the initial (illegal) search.

For example: police are waiting for a warrant to search a warehouse of a known counterfeiter. At 10pm, the police, without the warrant, enter the warehouse based on a premise that is later ruled illegal (i.e. they conducted an illegal search at that point in time). During the 10pm search, they discover a printing press and other evidence of counterfeiting. The prosecutor, unaware of the 10pm search, gets a judge to sign the search warrant at 11pm. At trial, the presiding judge, after ruling the 10pm search illegal, would still rule that the evidence obtained from the illegal 10pm search is in fact admissible, since it would have been inevitably discovered by a search conducted at 11pm with the valid search warrant.

Basically, the police have to show that in the course of their normal investigative process, they would have found the evidence by legal means.

A second exception to the exclusionary rule is if the police making the search act in good faith, then, even if the search is later ruled illegal, the evidence obtained is admissible. A good faith search occurs when police, acting on information that they have no reason to doubt as genuine, nonetheless complete a search which is illegal.

The two major examples of this are: police obtain a search warrant before a search. However, later on, the warrant itself is declared invalid. The search is illegal, but the evidence obtained is still admissible. The second example is when a police officer does a post-arrest search (normally allowable), but where the basis for the arrest were faulty through no fault of the arresting officer. This can occur when when a police officer checks for outstanding arrest warrants for a person, and the dispatch incorrectly indicates one exists (creating the reason for the arrest and authority to search). If a computer or records error is later shown to indicate there WAS NO arrest warrant, the police officer's search is was illegal, but the evidence is still admissible, since the officer had no reason to assume a clerical error had taken place.

The restriction on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is that there must be no pattern of misbehavior on the police's part - that is, if the police deliberately misinform the judge to get the warrant, or if recordskeeping is known to be sloppy or negligently maintained, then the police CANNOT invoke the good faith exception, as their systemic negligence means they are now operating in bad faith.

Answer 2

Any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible, regardless of who got it.

Answer 3

If the state can prove that they would have inevitably have found the evidence anyways. And if the Judge approves.