Evidence seized illegally is inadmissible in court.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Sometimes
• D. Only in civil cases

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure is generally not allowed to be used at trial. This rule exists to protect the Fourth Amendment rights and to deter unlawful police conduct. When the police grab something without a valid warrant or probable cause, that evidence is typically excluded from being used to prove guilt, and even derivative evidence may be tainted (the fruit of the poisonous tree).

There are a few recognized exceptions that can let some unlawfully obtained evidence come in, such as when officers acted in good faith on a warrant later found to be defective, or when the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means anyway (inevitable discovery or independent source doctrine). But without these exceptions, the statement holds: illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in criminal court.