What condition must be met for evidence obtained during illegal searches to be used in court according to MN v Fort?

In the context of MN v. Fort, the principle at play is the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures is typically inadmissible in court. This ruling reinforces the protection of constitutional rights against unlawful government actions, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

When evidence is obtained through means that violate the Fourth Amendment, it is generally suppressed to prevent any potential abuse of power by law enforcement. This ensures that individuals cannot be prosecuted based on evidence that was improperly gathered, promoting the idea that law enforcement must respect citizens' rights during investigations.

The other options do not align with the established legal principle. Evidence cannot simply be documented to become admissible if it was obtained illegally, nor can it be considered always admissible regardless of how it was obtained. Additionally, the accused's consent does not rectify the legality of how the evidence was gathered; consent does not authorize unlawful searches. Thus, the only condition that permits the use of such evidence is that it has been duly suppressed if obtained illegally.