What does the exclusionary rule state?

• A. Hearsay is inadmissible.
• B. Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
• C. The jury must be unanimous.
• D. All evidence must be admitted.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections may be excluded from court. The exclusionary rule holds that when investigators conduct searches or seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment, the resulting evidence should not be admitted to prove guilt. This rule is a constitutional safeguard that prevents the government from benefiting from unlawful actions, and it reinforces the idea that rights against unreasonable search and seizure have real consequences in how evidence is collected and used. Landmark rulings, like Mapp v. Ohio, extended this safeguard to state courts as well. In practice, the effect is that illegally obtained items or tainted information are generally suppressed at trial, though there are recognized exceptions such as evidence discovered independently of the illegal conduct or evidence gathered in good faith under a defective warrant. The other options don’t fit because they address different rules or concepts: hearsay rules govern the admissibility of secondhand statements, verdict unanimity pertains to how a jury decides a case, and the idea that all evidence must be admitted contradicts the purpose of suppression when illegitimate methods were used.