What do you think about suppressing certain evidence because it has been obtained illegally? How does it relate to the Constitutional right to due process? Explain your point of view fully, giving examples to back yourself up.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Article IV, establishes that all evidence obtained without a prior search warrant will be considered illegitimate and cannot be taken as valid at trial.

In this regard, it is necessary to differentiate the evidence in its material aspect and in its legal aspect: there is no doubt that the evidence, even taken illegitimately, shows a situation that actually occurred. Now, legally, all evidence has to be collected respecting due process, otherwise, constitutional guarantees will be violated and said collection will be as illegal as the crime charged to the accused.

Therefore, the police and other justice officials must endeavor to act in accordance with the law at the time of collecting evidence, respecting the Constitution in all its parts in order to prevent criminals from getting away with it.

there are no mutiple choices here