Also known as: fruit doctrine · fruits of the poisonous tree · fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine · fruit of the poisonous tree
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of criminal procedure that excludes from trial any evidence obtained by exploiting an initial constitutional violation. The rule reaches both physical evidence and testimonial statements discovered through the unlawful conduct. Courts apply the doctrine unless the government establishes that the evidence came from an independent source, would have been discovered inevitably, or that the causal connection to the violation has become sufficiently attenuated.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Coast Guard agents unlawfully entered Captain Luis Rivera's cabin and seized a log listing rendezvous coordinates. Using those coordinates they obtained a surveillance warrant and later interdicted a vessel carrying narcotics. Rivera moved to suppress the contraband. The court granted the motion because the seizure flowed directly from exploitation of the illegal cabin search.
Officers conducted an unlawful search of a business and learned the identity of a sales clerk. Months later an FBI agent contacted the clerk, who freely agreed to testify about her employer's activities. The employer moved to suppress the clerk's testimony. The court denied suppression because the clerk's voluntary decision to testify sufficiently attenuated the connection to the initial illegality.
Detectives violated a suspect's Sixth Amendment rights by eliciting the location of a child's body. Search teams were already closing in on the same area through lawful efforts. The prosecution proved the body would have been found within hours regardless of the violation. The court admitted evidence of the body's location under the inevitable-discovery exception.
Federal agents conducted an illegal wiretap on one defendant's phone. The conversations led them to evidence found in a co-defendant's home. The co-defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The court denied the motion because the co-defendant lacked standing to challenge the original wiretap violation.
Agents obtained evidence against multiple defendants through an unlawful electronic surveillance. One defendant sought to suppress conversations recorded on another person's phone. The court permitted the challenge because the evidence was derived from the initial constitutional violation.
Officers obtained an unwarned confession from a suspect. The confession led them to physical evidence and a later warned statement. The defendant moved to suppress both the physical evidence and the second statement. The court held that the fruits doctrine does not automatically require suppression of evidence derived from a Miranda violation.
No. The doctrine extends to evidence derived from violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as well. Courts have applied it to suppress identifications obtained after an unlawful lineup and statements obtained after an unlawful interrogation.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the temporal proximity between the illegality and the discovery of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the official misconduct. When these factors show that the evidence was obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable from the primary illegality, the taint is considered purged.
…discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. Williams contends that evidence of the body's location and condition is "fruit of the poisonous tree," i. e. , the "fruit" or product of Detective Leaming's plea to help the child's parents give her "a Christian burial," which this Court had already held equated to interrogation. He…
…by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," id. , at 654.) The next year, the Court again declined to apply the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
…coercive tactics. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant’s statements were voluntary. C. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
…In its initial opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court had determined that the second confession, to Donna Sarivola, was not the "fruit of the poisonous tree
…(1984), and — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2246, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986). The Court need not address this argument to the extent that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Supporting sources
Yes. A defendant may suppress derivative evidence discovered on a third party's premises when the evidence is causally linked to an earlier violation of the defendant's own constitutional rights. The key inquiry is whether the later evidence was obtained by exploitation of the initial illegality.
Supporting sources
Not automatically. The Supreme Court has declined to apply the fruits doctrine to all consequences of a Miranda violation because the Miranda warnings are prophylactic rather than constitutionally required. Physical evidence or later statements may therefore remain admissible even if obtained after an unwarned interrogation.
Supporting sources
The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence was discovered through a source wholly separate from the illegal conduct. When lawfully obtained information alone would have supported a warrant or led to the evidence, the independent-source doctrine permits admission.
Supporting sources