16 - Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

Abstract

In a democracy where the rule of law is of paramount importance, the government must follow the law so that fundamental fairness and predictability of behaviors serve as the norm for both the government and its citizens. Fair dealing is a rough equivalent to due process, which everyone should be able to expect and all are entitled to receive from all levels of government. On the rare occasion when a local, state, or the federal government fails to follow the policy of due process and fairness, a remedy should be readily accessible for the constitutional violation. In the discussion of the rules of evidence in <a class=cLink queryStr=?_fmt=high&_origin=article&_docanchor=defaultINDEX_LINK_ANCHORm it is to reduce any incentive for future improper governmental behavior so that the executive branch law enforcers observe the rule the next time the situation arises. In fact, in many instances, the evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provisions is highly relevant and material and would be admissible under the traditional rules of evidence. The courts have reasoned that even though the evidence is otherwise admissible and would help prove or disprove a fact at issue, illegally obtained evidence should not be admitted because authorizing the use of illegally obtained evidence would encourage violation of citizens’ rights as enumerated in the Constitution and give a judicial stamp of approval for future law enforcement violations of the Constitution.