any evidence will be described as illegal if there is proof that it was forcefully obtained,without permission properly investigated .
It really defeats the purpose of upholding the law really it's common sense thats like asking why the court can't be a hypocrite
Mapp rule
exclusionary rule
exclusionary rule
exclusionary rule
exclusionary rule
The accused has the right to challenge the admissibility of any evidence used against them at trial. Whether an e-mail or any other evidence is "illegally obtained" is subject to the interpretation of the court, not the accused. If the court rules that evidence is obtained unlawfully, it can be suppressed at trial and not considered.
exclusionary rule
The Exclusionary Rule's purpose is to keep certain evidence from being used against you in a criminal trial. Police procedure in gathering evidence against you is heavily dictated by cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment. Evidence gathered in violation of your Constitutional rights is subject to the Exclusionary Rule.
Evidence obtained illegally may be excluded from the exclusionary rule when it:Comes from a private person who was not acting for the governmentComes from the state government, which turns the evidence over to the federal governmentViolated a person's rights, but the person is not the one who is on trialWould have been found eventually through legal meansCannot be used to the defendant's advantage because of other evidenceBelow is an article with additional info on the exclusionary rule.
In law this is known as the exclusionary rule.
If an officer were to obtain evidence illegally, such as searching you without probable cause, the evidence they acquired would not be admissible in court. That's not to say the entire case would be thrown out, but that single piece of evidence would not be allowed in court. The exclusionary rule doesn't prevent unlawful searches and seizures, but it disincentivizes them by making evidence seized unlawfully inadmissible at trial. There's no reason to illegally obtain evidence if it can't be used to convict a defendant.
No, evidence obtained illegally, including letters that were opened without permission, is generally not admissible in court due to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in legal proceedings.