What is the general rule about statements obtained in violation of constitutional rights, and what are the listed exceptions?

What is the general rule about statements obtained in violation of constitutional rights, and what are the listed exceptions?

• A. All such statements are admissible; no exceptions.
• B. They cannot be used; exceptions include impeachment only.
• C. They cannot be used; exceptions include impeachment, public safety, and inevitable discovery.
• D. They can be used in administrative hearings.

Answer: (C)

Statements obtained in violation of constitutional rights are generally not admissible at trial to protect individual rights and the integrity of the process. But there are narrow exceptions that recognize situations where excluding the statements would work inequities or undermine other important interests. One exception allows the statement to be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility if they testify and contradict their prior statements. Another exception, the public safety rule, lets police questions and the resulting statements be admitted when their purpose is to address an imminent threat to public safety, even if warnings weren’t given. A third exception, the inevitable discovery doctrine, permits the use of such statements if the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means anyway. Therefore, the correct view is that these statements cannot be used in general, with these specific exceptions.

Statements obtained in violation of constitutional rights are generally not admissible at trial to protect individual rights and the integrity of the process. But there are narrow exceptions that recognize situations where excluding the statements would work inequities or undermine other important interests. One exception allows the statement to be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility if they testify and contradict their prior statements. Another exception, the public safety rule, lets police questions and the resulting statements be admitted when their purpose is to address an imminent threat to public safety, even if warnings weren’t given. A third exception, the inevitable discovery doctrine, permits the use of such statements if the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means anyway. Therefore, the correct view is that these statements cannot be used in general, with these specific exceptions.