Matthew J. Ruff Criminal Law Blog on Lawyers.com

As a Los Angeles Criminal Attorney I am often asked to explain what happens if the police violate a person's 4th amendment rights and find evidence to use against them in Court.  Due to frequent abuses and unconstitutional actions by law enforcement the Courts created a remedy banning the use of evidence gathered under such circumstances called suppression. The exclusionary rule requires that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures found to have been done in violation of the rights of an accused are inadmissible against that person in a later criminal trial. The rule is premised on the notion that if private, constitutionally protected areas can be searched, and items taken unlawfully are used to obtain a conviction, the protections of the Fourth Amendment are of little, if any, value. The exclusionary rule is  basically an enforcement mechanism, serving to give teeth to constitutional guarantees. Additionally, the rule bars the use of all forms of illegally obtained evidence. Physical evidence as well as statements can all be excluded, if they derive from an unconstitutional act, such as an unlawful arrest, illegal search or coercive interrogation. If law enforcement officials come by evidence through exploitation of their illegal conduct, the evidence is said to be tainted, and evidence tainted by illegal conduct on the part of police is inadmissible against an accused.