Which doctrine holds that illegally seized evidence is not admissible in court?

• A. Due Process
• B. Double Jeopardy
• C. Hearsay Rule
• D. Exclusionary Rule

Answer: (D)

The Exclusionary Rule says that evidence obtained through illegal searches or seizures cannot be used in court, protecting the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable invasions. This rule also covers derivative evidence—the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree—so tainted material gathered as a result of the illegal action is usually excluded, reinforcing the idea that unlawful police conduct shouldn’t pay off in court. The purpose is to deter improper policing and maintain constitutional protections, ensuring that evidence admitted is lawfully obtained. While due process relates to fair procedures, it isn’t the doctrine specifically about excluding illegally obtained evidence; double jeopardy concerns being tried more than once, and the hearsay rule governs the admissibility of out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. There are limited exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (like independent source, inevitable discovery, good faith, or attenuation), but the core idea remains: illegally seized evidence is not admissible.