I'm suggesting something like video evidence of a person committing a crime should be presentable to the court whether illegally obtained or not. It IS evidence of the crime after all, in the dictionary, common, sense.

Now, if the video was indeed obtained illegally, then that's another, unrelated to the case on trial, issue, and can be tried separately, have the officer fired or fined, etc.

The idea is very simple: we don't want the police illegally obtaining video (so we discourage that), but in case there is one and it proves a person's innocence or guilt, we might as well use it at the same time.

Sounds perfectly logical to me.

The idea that: we throw video evidence that a man is innocent and let him get the death penalty, or we throw video that a man killed 5 people and let him get off, because we want to discourage the police from getting video evidence illegally, sounds totally illogical.

There are other ways to discourage the police from doing so in the general case, without throwing away perfectly good evidence if it's available in a particular case.

Of course I'm not an American, and so I was not accustomed from a young age on what should and should not be held as evidence, and what is the supposed one and only way to go about such things.