One of many rules of evidence. This rule disallows the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. (Usually as the "fruit of the poisonous tree".)
A judge-made rule that prevents unconstitutionally obtained evidence from being used in court to build a case against a criminal defendant.
Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against you in court.
The understanding, based on Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process, or it will not be allowed as evidence in criminal trials.
courtroom ban on evidence obtained improperly.
Judge-made doctrine that says evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights is not admissible at trial.
Judicial doctrine based on the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal searches and seizures, which provides that evidence obtained illegally may not be used in a trial.
Law] When a search is conducted without legal requirement any evidence obtained may not be used in court. See Weeks v. U.S. 1914, Mapp v. Ohio 1961. Further evidence obtained solely from inadmissible evidence is also inadmissible. See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. 1920
A court created rule of evidence which makes illegally acquired evidence inadmissible. An interpretation of constitutional guarantees holding that evidence obtained through illegal means by police cannot be used at trial. Under this rule evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures is excluded from use at trial under the protections of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
a rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct
A judicial rule that prevents the government from introducing illegally obtained evidence at a criminal trial.
Legal principle that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights cannot be used in court. See Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
The exclusion of any evidence that was obtained illegally.
Doctrine that says evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's constitutional or statutory rights is not admissible at trial.
The rule preventing illegally obtained evidence to be used in any trial.
A rule of evidence that disallows the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials.
("fruits of the poison tree") prohibits the use of evidence gathered by police as the result of activity that is not legally justified
A rule by which evidence that was obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial against a defendant. Also, in criminal cases, a rule which prevents witnesses from observing each other testify or from discussing testimony during the course of the proceeding.
"n. the rule that evidence secured by illegal means and in bad faith cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. The technical term is that it is "excluded" upon a motion to suppress made by the lawyer for the accused. It is based on the constitutional requirement that "?no [person] can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, applied to the states by 14th Amendment). A technical error in a search warrant made in good faith will not cause exclusion of the evidence obtained under that warrant. In 1995 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained with a warrant that had been cancelled could be admitted if the law enforcement officer believed it was still in force. However, evidence which was uncovered as a result of obtaining other evidence illegally will be excluded, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." Thus, if an illegal wire tap reveals the location of other evidence, both the transcript of the wire tap conversation and the evidence to which the listeners were directed will be excluded. See also: due process of law fruit of the poisonous tree motion to suppress "
the provision that the Supreme Court has interpreted to exist in the Constitution that prohibits evidence obtained by means of an unlawful seizure from being admitted in a court of law
principle that evidence cannot be used against a person if it was obtained illegally. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in the 1967 case, Mapp v. Ohio. In Nix v. Williams (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence that had been illegally obtained could be used against someone in court if the prosecution could prove that the evidence "ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means." In the same year, in United States v. Leon, the Court again restricted the exclusionary rule. The Court decided that, "when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant," the evidence obtained should be admissible in court, even if the warrant later proves to be faulty.
rule prohibiting the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal prosecutions
The rule that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used at trial.
In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial).