Under what specific conditions can illegally obtained evidence be admissible in court, despite the Exclusionary Rule?

The 'Exclusionary Rule' generally prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial to deter law enforcement misconduct. However, several exceptions exist where such evidence may be deemed admissible. One exception is the 'independent source' doctrine, which allows admission if the evidence was also discovered through a source completely independent of the illegal search or seizure. For example, if police illegally search a warehouse and find stolen goods, but they also received an anonymous tip providing the warehouse's location and a warrant based on that tip is obtained, the evidence may be admissible under the independent source doctrine. Another exception is the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine, which allows admission if the prosecution can prove that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through legal means, regardless of the illegal conduct. For instance, if police illegally search a car for a murder weapon, but they were already in the process of obtaining a warrant based on probable cause and would have inevitably searched the car legally, the weapon may be admissible. The 'good faith' exception applies when law enforcement officers acted in a reasonable good faith belief that their actions were lawful, even if they were later determined to be illegal. This often applies when officers rely on a warrant that is later found to be defective, provided the officers acted in good faith in obtaining and executing the warrant. The 'attenuation doctrine' permits admission when the connection between the illegal conduct and the discovery of the evidence is so attenuated (weakened) that the taint of the illegal conduct is dissipated. This can occur when there is a significant lapse in time or a significant intervening event between the illegal act and the discovery of the evidence. Finally, illegally obtained evidence can be used to impeach a defendant's testimony if they take the stand and make statements inconsistent with the evidence. This exception allows the prosecution to challenge the defendant's credibility, but the evidence is only admissible for impeachment purposes, not as direct evidence of guilt.