Brainliest if right please help asap 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.

Admitting the evidence therefore makes the police “better off” than they would have been had they obeyed the Constitution, and suppressing the evidence ordinarily puts them in the same position that they would have occupied if they had refrained from performing the search or seizure.

Evidenced discovered by an illegal search and seizure is generally inadmissible in court under what is known as the "exclusionary rule." This means that even if the murder weapon was found and can conclusively establish that a suspect killed someone, if it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure.

Explanation:

How does it relate to the Constitutional right to due process?

it does not deny a defendant due process to subject initially to trial before ... as established in people, if the defense specifically requested certain evidence ... to the Court's overruling conflicting prior case law that had held constitutional ... does deny due process if he penalizes the assertion of a right or privilege