Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine describes:

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine describes:

• A. Extends the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained indirectly from illegally obtained evidence
• B. Permits evidence obtained with a bad warrant
• C. Only physical evidence is subject to exclusion
• D. Under this doctrine, all evidence is admissible

Answer: (A)

The idea behind this doctrine is that the exclusionary rule extends beyond the illegally obtained item itself to any evidence that flows from that illegality. If police gain this evidence through an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation, anything derived from that tainted start—such as additional physical items found, subsequent statements, or other fruits of the initial violation—typically cannot be used in court. The aim is to deter misconduct and protect Fourth Amendment rights, by making the consequences of unlawfulness extend to all evidence that would not have been found otherwise. There are exceptions where the taint can be broken, such as when evidence has an independent source, would have been inevitably discovered anyway, or becomes sufficiently attenuated from the original illegality. This is why the correct description fits: it extends the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained indirectly from illegally obtained evidence. It does not mean that bad warrants are allowed, that only physical evidence is excluded, or that all evidence is admissible.

The idea behind this doctrine is that the exclusionary rule extends beyond the illegally obtained item itself to any evidence that flows from that illegality. If police gain this evidence through an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation, anything derived from that tainted start—such as additional physical items found, subsequent statements, or other fruits of the initial violation—typically cannot be used in court. The aim is to deter misconduct and protect Fourth Amendment rights, by making the consequences of unlawfulness extend to all evidence that would not have been found otherwise. There are exceptions where the taint can be broken, such as when evidence has an independent source, would have been inevitably discovered anyway, or becomes sufficiently attenuated from the original illegality. This is why the correct description fits: it extends the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained indirectly from illegally obtained evidence. It does not mean that bad warrants are allowed, that only physical evidence is excluded, or that all evidence is admissible.