What is the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree“?
If a court determines that a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by law enforcement, all evidence that is gathered by law enforcement as a result of that violation will be excluded as evidence in the case. For example, law enforcement arrests and questions a suspect in a burglary without reading his rights to him. The suspect confesses to the crime and tells law enforcement where they can locate the stolen property. The stolen property is located, and it has the suspect’s fingerprints on it. As a result of the unlawful questioning of the suspect, a court will order that neither the confession nor the stolen property with the suspect’s fingerprints may be used as evidence against the suspect. The concept in the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” is that all evidence that is identified as a result of an unconstitutional action by the police will be excluded. In the example given, the confession is a direct result of an unconstitutional action by the police and will
