Final answer:
False representation of a search warrant by police invalidates the consent given for a search, making any evidence collected inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.
Step-by-step explanation:
Falsely claiming to possess a search warrant can indeed void consent to search a residence, as consent must be freely and knowingly given.The right of individuals to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental aspect of the Fourth Amendment. In instances where law enforcement officers intend to search a property, they must either have a valid search warrant or receive voluntary consent from the owner or legal occupant.
The case of Georgia v. Randolph highlighted the importance of consent, ruling that police cannot conduct a warrantless search if one occupant consents while another objects. Consent obtained through deception, such as falsely claiming to possess a search warrant, is not considered legitimate. Moreover, the exclusivity rule, derived from Mapp v. Ohio, mandates that any evidence obtained from an illegal search or as the result of such search - termed as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' - cannot be used in court. Hence, any evidence obtained under the pretense of a non-existent search warrant would not be admissible, rendering the search illegal and the consent void.