Final answer:
Illegally recovered evidence cannot be used in trial due to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained without a warrant and not falling under any exceptions in a state criminal trial. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The exclusionary rule has exceptions, such as the 'good faith' exception and the 'inevitable discovery' exception.
Step-by-step explanation:
The exclusionary rule, established in the Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court case of 1961, states that evidence obtained without a warrant and not falling under any exceptions cannot be used in a state criminal trial.
This rule is based on the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule applies not only to the evidence directly obtained without a warrant but also to any evidence developed or discovered as a result of the illegal search or seizure.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizure by the government. This means that the police generally need a warrant to search your property or seize your belongings.
If the police conduct an illegal search or seizure without a warrant and find evidence of a crime, that evidence cannot be used in trial due to the exclusionary rule.
It is important to note that the exclusionary rule has exceptions, such as the 'good faith' exception, which allows evidence to be used if the police believed they were executing a valid warrant, and the 'inevitable discovery' exception, which allows evidence to be used if it would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means.