Originally Posted by Assassin™
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's definitely a good thing. I happen to be fond of my civil liberties. The Bill of Rights were put there for a reason, and they apply to everyone, even criminals. It is a legal technicality which may result in a person guilty of a crime to not be found guilty in court, but again, that's the whole concept behind our justice system: the burden of proof is on the state, and our constitutional rights may not be violated solely to admit damning evidence in a trial.

There are some exceptions you may not be aware though which would kind of defeat your exemplary scenario. First of all, in all likelihood, if someone is on trial for murder, either a body will have already been found, or there would be some other evidence that would convincingly suggest that they were complicit in a murder, otherwise they would have never been charged. Secondly, there are other direct exceptions, such as; if someone is charged with murder, the police would have the right and legal justification to search their home. Even under the exclusionary rule, this entails that even if a murder charge had not yet been brought, and the police illegally searched their home and found a dead body, that evidence would be admissible in a trial because it is reasonable to assume the body would have later been found as a result of a warranted search.

If you were instead suggesting that it was just a civilian who entered the home illegally and found the body, that would also be an exception to the rule and the evidence would be admissible, as the rule only applies to the government.