Which principle from Mapp v. Ohio is crucial to the integrity of the judicial process?

The principle from Mapp v. Ohio that is crucial to the integrity of the judicial process is the ruling that unlawfully obtained evidence is ruled out in court. This landmark 1961 Supreme Court case established the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence acquired in violation of the Fourth Amendment—a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures—from being used in state courts.

This principle is foundational to ensuring that law enforcement adheres to constitutional rights. It serves to deter illegal conduct by police, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal system. By excluding such evidence, the courts reinforce the idea that the judicial system will not endorse or benefit from violations of an individual's rights. This protects the fairness of trials and ensures public confidence in the justice system.

In contrast, confessions obtained under duress may be deemed inadmissible, but this option does not encompass the broader principle of evidence exclusion established by Mapp v. Ohio. The admissibility of evidence collected with consent is a separate legal issue and does not reflect the specific ruling of this case. Moreover, the notion that only tangible evidence is affected does not capture the full scope of the exclusionary rule, which includes a variety of evidence types, not just physical items.