Final answer:
The admissibility of evidence is contingent on its relevance to the current case, the legality of its procurement, and whether it establishes a pattern of behavior or motive. The exclusionary rule may render evidence obtained via illegal means inadmissible.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proper ruling on the admissibility of evidence depends on various factors including relevance, the existence of a pattern of behavior, whether the evidence was legally obtained, and if it shows a motive. If the evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior or a motive that is directly relevant to the current case, it may be deemed admissible. However, if the charges in the previous cases were dropped, it does not necessarily render the evidence inadmissible. The key is whether the evidence is pertinent to proving a point in the current case. On the other hand, if the evidence was obtained through an illegal search or seizure, in line with the exclusionary rule established in cases like Mapp v. Ohio, the evidence would be inadmissible. Ultimately, the evidence must also satisfy the burden of proof, which is beyond a preponderance of evidence in civil cases and beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
In the case described, the proper ruling would be option 1: The evidence is admissible because it shows a pattern of behavior. When determining whether evidence is admissible in court, one of the key factors is relevancy. Evidence is considered relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In this case, the evidence showing a pattern of behavior is relevant because it helps establish a motive for the accused individual's actions.