Inspired by this question related to admissibility of evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure: At an unlawful traffic stop, police searches the car and find the weapon used in a recent murder
Suppose the following facts:
A uniformed police officer Al pulls over a car Bob for no lawful reason. The unlawful nature of the stop is not disputed.
Al proceeds to search Bob's car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The unlawful nature of the search is not disputed.
In the trunk of the car, Al finds the dead body of Cal. Cal has been stabbed to death with a knife (also in the trunk) covered in Bob's fingerprints. There is a full account of the murder signed by both Bob and Cal which describes Bob murdering Cal. There are polaroid photos of Bob murdering Cal, also in the trunk.
There is no other evidence tying Bob to Cal's murder; no prior history, no eyewitness testimony, no missing persons reports, no indication of where Cal was murdered or why (other than the signed document) and Bob lawyered up and has refused to answer any questions on the grounds he fears self-incrimination.
Given these facts are not disputed:
- would we expect any of this evidence not to be ruled inadmissible if challenged in a criminal trial?
- assuming the evidence described is ruled inadmissible, what would the law require be returned to Bob?
- the knife?
- the pictures and document?
- the clothes Cal was wearing?
- Cal's body?
- would Bob be required to claim ownership of these items to have them returned, or would returning them be the default action?
- if Bob is required to claim ownership of the items to recover them, and does claim ownership, can that claim of ownership be used in a new trial against Bob?