Which case is referenced in determining if evidence is admissible based on constitutional procedures?

The case referred to for determining if evidence is admissible based on constitutional procedures is Miranda v. Arizona. This landmark Supreme Court decision established that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This requirement is rooted in the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.

Miranda v. Arizona has a direct impact on the admissibility of evidence because statements made by a suspect who has not been properly informed of these rights may not be used against them in court. Therefore, if a suspect's rights were not respected during the interrogation process, any resulting evidence or confessions could be deemed inadmissible, significantly affecting the outcome of a case.

This ruling highlights the importance of constitutional procedures in protecting individual rights within the criminal justice system, ensuring fair treatment and due process. The implications of this case extend to various interactions with law enforcement, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to these constitutional requirements to validate the admissibility of evidence.