Can illegally obtained evidence be used in a trial?

Answer 1

Hmmm....this looks exactly like the question posted for homework by my professor. Looks like somebody needs to think on their own and do their own homework. Just look up exclusionary rule. Also, this is an opinion question, so there really is no way to get an incorrect answer unless you can not support your theory.

Answer 2

Generally speaking, no, because of the exclusionary rule. However, on occasion, evidence seized under somewhat questionable or unclear circumstances IS ruled admissible.

There are two major exceptions to the exclusionary rule. They are inevitable discovery and good faith searches. In short, if the police can show that any evidence obtained by a illegal search would have reasonably been discovered by a later (legal) search that the police would have conducted had the first (illegal) search not already discovered the evidence, then the evidence can be admitted due to inevitable discovery. In the second case, if the arresting officer conducted a search due to bad information (e.g. a search warrant that was improperly issued, or an arrest warrant which which was no longer valid, but seemed so, due to clerical error) that the officer had no reason to suspect was bad, then the search is valid, since the officer was acting in good faith and was following what appeared to be proper procedure.