Provision of Illegally Obtained Evidence

The right to a fair trial and the right against unlawful search and seizure are two of the most fundamental rights protected by our Constitution. The exclusionary rule is one way in which these rights can be enforced. However, it is not the only mechanism for ensuring that evidence obtained illegally or without proper legal authorization cannot be used before a court of law. There are various ways in which illegally obtained evidence can be excluded from criminal proceedings.

Illegally Obtained Evidence Introductory Note

The exclusionary rule is a principle of evidence law that prohibits the use of evidence in court if it was obtained illegally. This can be done through a variety of methods, but it most often occurs when police officers violate citizens’ rights under the Fourth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable search or seizure. Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence that has been obtained illegally cannot be used against you at trial. You may also be able to get compensation for the damages caused by this violation of your rights (such as emotional distress).

Illegally Obtained Evidence Arrest and Search Warrant

An arrest warrant is an order issued by a judge that authorizes law enforcement to take you into custody. This can happen if you are suspected of having committed a crime, or if there is probable cause to believe that you will commit one in the future. An arrest warrant must contain certain information, including:

  • Your name and address (or place where you’re likely to be found).
  • The name of the crime with which you are charged, along with any other relevant facts about it. For example, if it’s been alleged that someone shot someone else at point-blank range while they were sitting in their car outside an apartment building on Main Street in downtown Los Angeles at 2 am last night, those details should be included as well!

Illegally Obtained Evidence Interrogation and Statement of the Accused

The accused has the right to remain silent. The accused has the right to a lawyer. The accused has the right to be informed of his rights. When an individual is arrested, they are entitled to know what their rights are and how they can exercise them. The police must inform any suspect that:

  • They have been arrested;
  • Why they were arrested;
  • What crime they are suspected of committing;
  • That anything said by them may be used against them in court;
  • If they do not wish to make a statement or answer questions at this time, then their silence cannot be used against them in court (although it may look bad);
  • If arrested for driving under influence (DUI), there will be mandatory blood/breath alcohol testing unless medical reasons exist which would prevent such testing from taking place immediately after being stopped by police officers.

Illegally Obtained Evidence Production of Commercial Documents

The court may also order the production of other documents, including invoices, sales records, and other commercial documents. The court may order the production of any document in any language and in any form. The court may also order the production of accounts, books, records, and any other document that it considers reasonably necessary to determine whether a party has complied with its duties under the contract.

The court may not order the production of documents that are privileged or confidential. For example, if a party is required to produce financial statements for its business, the court may not require it to disclose any information contained in those statements that are confidential or subject to attorney-client privilege.

The Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence

The exclusionary rule does not require that illegally obtained evidence be excluded from the record in court proceedings. The exclusionary rule is based on the assumption that law enforcement authorities will act in good faith and use only legal means to obtain evidence. If a police officer has obtained evidence illegally, he or she should not be permitted to use it as evidence against you because doing so would encourage other officers to violate the law out of fear that they would otherwise lose their case.

The Exclusionary Rule Doesn’t Require That Illegally Obtained Evidence

The exclusionary rule is not a remedy. The exclusionary rule is a rule of evidence that applies only in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to civil proceedings or administrative proceedings, such as those involving professional license revocation or business licenses. The Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not require that illegally obtained evidence be excluded from the record in court proceedings; instead, it simply prohibits prosecutors from introducing such evidence at trial because doing so might lead members of juries (and other fact finders) astray about what sort of conduct is lawful and what sort of conduct isn’t a problem known as “taint.”


The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court. The purpose of this article was to discuss how the exclusionary rule can be applied in practice, by looking at four different scenarios where police officers may need to obtain evidence from other sources than their own investigation.