Which principle explains the legal consequences of exceeding a designated authority?

The principle that best explains the legal consequences of exceeding a designated authority is the Exclusionary Rule. This rule is a judicially created principle aimed at protecting individuals from unlawful searches and seizures as well as ensuring that evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights cannot be used in court. When an authority exceeds its designated limits—such as conducting searches without a warrant or failing to adhere to proper procedures for obtaining evidence—the evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible. This serves as a safeguard against abuses of power and upholds the integrity of the legal system.

In contrast, the other principles do not apply to the context of exceeding authority and its consequences in the same way. Chain of custody pertains to the proper handling of evidence to ensure it remains uncontaminated and traceable, while judicial review generally involves the power of courts to examine the actions of legislative and executive branches for their constitutionality. Self-incrimination, meanwhile, relates to an individual's right to remain silent and not provide testimony that could incriminate themselves, rather than the consequences faced when authority is exceeded.