What does the exclusionary rule require?

• A. All evidence obtained is admissible in court.
• B. Any evidence obtained unlawfully is admitted if it is strong.
• C. Only some types of unlawfully obtained evidence are excluded.
• D. Any evidence obtained unlawfully is suppressed or excluded and cannot be used in court.

Answer: (D)

At the heart of the exclusionary rule is the idea that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights cannot be used in court. This is designed to deter police from unlawful searches or seizures and to protect the integrity of the judicial process. The correct view is that any evidence obtained unlawfully is suppressed or excluded and cannot be used in court. That means items seized without a valid warrant or probable cause and statements obtained through illegal interrogation are typically not admissible. There are recognized exceptions where unlawfully obtained evidence can still be admitted—for example, when police relied in good faith on a flawed warrant, or when the evidence has an independent lawful source or would have been discovered anyway. But the default position is suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence, which is why the other statements don’t fit.