Which doctrine can be invoked if evidence is obtained through illegal means?

The answer is the exclusionary rule, which is a legal principle that prevents evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being used in court. This rule is rooted in the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. When evidence is obtained through illegal means, such as without a proper warrant or through coercive interrogation tactics, the exclusionary rule serves to uphold fair legal procedures by ensuring that such improperly obtained evidence cannot influence the outcome of a trial.

This doctrine is critically important for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, encouraging law enforcement to adhere to legal standards when gathering evidence. It acts as a deterrent against unlawful practices, thereby reinforcing the rights of individuals.

The other options, while relevant to discussions of evidence and law enforcement conduct, do not apply directly to the scenario of evidence obtained illegally in the same way the exclusionary rule does. The good faith exception, for instance, allows for the admission of evidence if law enforcement officers were acting under the belief they were conducting a lawful search, even if that belief is later proven wrong. The plain view doctrine refers to the ability of officers to seize evidence of a crime without a warrant if it is clearly visible in their view. Lastly, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine