Why, according to justice clark, is it better for a criminal to go free than to convict the criminal with illegally seized evidence?

In the case Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the United States Supreme Court declared that evidence that had been obtained illegally (in violation of the Fourth Amendment) could not be used in criminal law persecutions, whether at the state or federal level.

Justice Clark explained why it is so important to disregard illegally obtained evidence. He argues that even if the criminal were to go free because of it, the citizens would be sure that the court followed the law, and that it is the law which is setting him free. Nothing would damage the citizens' trust more than knowing the law is not respected. Therefore, the government cannot fail to observe the law, or bend it to its advantage.

answer; i believe the correct answer is (federalist);