Can evidence ever be inadmissible in court?

On Behalf of | Mar 16, 2020 | Criminal Defense

When a police officer enters the home of a Longview resident and conducts a search without a warrant and without probable cause, it is considered unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures—those that were conducted without both the elements mentioned above.

What many people may not realize is that evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure may not be introduced in court, under the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule prohibits the government from using almost all evidence obtained unconstitutionally. This exclusionary rule extends to self-incriminating statements as well.

In addition to this, if evidence that could be excluded leads to the discovery of further evidence that would not have been located without the original evidence, then the newly discovered evidence would most likely also be excluded. The rule is in place to deter police officers from conducting unconstitutional search and seizures and to give remedies to those who’s rights have been violated.

There are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule of evidence, such as if the evidence would have inevitably been discovered by an independent investigation already taking place when the unlawful search and seizure took place. it might also be possible for the evidence to become admissible later on if the evidence is discovered through a constitutionally valid search.

When presenting a criminal defense against criminal charges, it is important to challenge many aspects of the prosecution’s case. One avenue to pursue may be to challenge the admissibility of the evidence gathered. An experienced professional can provide guidance on how to proceed.