Question

When presented with the evidence against him, Ellison freely admitted to engaging in illegal transactions using company facilities. However, the company obtained the evidence by illegally recording Ellison’s conversations. Therefore, although the company may demand that he immediately cease, it cannot justifiably take any punitive measures against him.

Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?

(A) After Price confessed to having stolen money from Long over a period of several years, Long began stealing from Price. Despite Price’s guilt, Long was not justified in taking illegal action against him.
(B) Shakila’s secretary has admitted that he is illegally receiving cable television without paying for it. Shakila would not be justified in reporting him, though, since she once did the same thing.
(C) After Takashi told Sarah’s parents that he had seen her at the movies on Tuesday, Sarah confessed to sneaking out that day. On Monday, however, Takashi had violated the local curfew for minors. Hence Sarah’s parents cannot justifiably punish her in this case.
(D) After a conservation officer discovered them, Kuttner admitted that he had set the illegal animal traps on his land. But, because she was trespassing at the time, the conservation officer cannot justifiably punish Kuttner in this case.
(E) Ramirez was forced by the discovery of new evidence to admit that she lied about her role in managing the chief of staff’s financial affairs. Nevertheless, the board of directors cannot justifiably take action against Ramirez, because in past instances it has pardoned others guilty of similar improprieties.
Show Answer

Answer 1

The best choice that illustrates the principle of excluding evidence obtained illegally is (D), where Kuttner's admission of setting illegal traps cannot be used against him due to the officer's trespassing.

Step-by-step explanation:

The principle illustrated by the argument presented involves the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through illegal means, protecting the rights of the individual against actions taken on the basis of such evidence. This principle relates to legal and constitutional provisions that ensure fair treatment under the law and exclude unlawfully obtained evidence, often referred to as fruit of the poisonous tree. The case of Miranda v. Arizona is a clear example where the Supreme Court ruled that evidence gained from police interrogation without advising the suspect of their rights is inadmissible because it violates constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

The best choice that illustrates this principle is (D), where Kuttner admitted to setting illegal animal traps after being discovered by a conservation officer who was trespassing. Despite the admission, the conservation officer cannot justifiably punish Kuttner because the evidence was obtained illegally.