We have certain rights in place for a reason but the whole matter of illegally obtained evidence is a matter that usually results in getting a very guilty person off. These technicalities are a burden on the court system and a real headache for the police. Sometimes the time it takes to get a warrant is a matter of life and death.
There is no other realistic way to dissuade illegal searches and seizures. People bring up scenarios where time is an issue, but that could be solved by allowing judges to retroactively grant warrants (provided the judge knows nothing about the outcome of the search and goes strictly based on the evidence they had beforehand).
One other way would be to prosecute police officers who conduct illegal searches and seizures but realistically this won't happen.
It's that simple. No one's constitutional rights should be impeded upon for the sake of making a case. It's my belief that the police system and the government have both become extremely corrupt. Police should not be able to use illegally obtained evidence to persecute someone. They are not above the law (neither is the government). Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable searches and seizures (i.E. Citizens can refuse to allow officers to search anything without a warrant and can disprove probable cause). It's a simple civil liberty that has been impeded on for quite some time.
United States citizens are supposed to be protected from illegal searches and seizures by the constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of allowing police to use illegally obtained evidence in court undermines the Bill of Rights in the constitution. Law enforcement should not be allowed to use evidence acquired illegally; otherwise, police might begin to trample on other rights during searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court made the terrible decision to allow cops the use of illegally obtained evidence in court. This means that people can no longer feel safe about legal proceedings: their homes are completely open to searches without a warrant. Not only that, it means that we can't trust the legal system if we use evidence that has itself been obtained illegally.
The question answers itself - if the evidence was obtained illegally, then absolutely no - it is inadmissible in court. In my opinion, during an investigation, if a person is guilty, then the truth will come out. It may not be fast, but with persistence, dedication, and creative investigative work, there's no need to break the law to prove a point to try and get a conviction.