English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The exclusion of police-obtained evidence at a criminal trial can be justified by one of two theories. Under one theory, evidence is excluded because the police have unconstitutionally obtained the evidence and exclusion is thought desirable to deter such police behavior in the future by precluding a substantial benefit from such misconduct. Under the other theory, the evidence is excluded because the Constitution guarantees the defendant a procedural right to exclude the evidence.1 The former theory focuses on the constitutional impropriety of obtaining the evidence, while the latter theory's focus is on the constitutional impropriety of using that evidence at trial. Obviously, one's choice of theory will affect the occasions upon which evidence is excluded. It will also determine whether the officer who obtained the

Police-Obtained Evidence and the Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence from Unconstitutionally Used Evidence