What is the primary consequence for evidence obtained illegally under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

What is the primary consequence for evidence obtained illegally under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

• A. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if it is corroborated.
• B. Derivative evidence is always admissible.
• C. The initial illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible only if the police knew it was illegal.
• D. Illegally obtained evidence and any derivative evidence are generally inadmissible in court.

Answer: (D)

The principle tested is that evidence gathered through an illegal search or seizure taints not only that illegally obtained material but also any evidence that flows from it. This protects constitutional rights by discouraging unlawful police conduct and preserving the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, the main consequence is that illegally obtained evidence and derivative evidence are generally inadmissible in court. There are exceptions—if the link to the illegality is sufficiently attenuated, or if an independent source or inevitable discovery applies—but those are not the default. The other options miss the general rule: corroboration doesn’t cure taint, derivative evidence isn’t automatically admissible, and police knowledge of illegality isn’t the test for admissibility.

The principle tested is that evidence gathered through an illegal search or seizure taints not only that illegally obtained material but also any evidence that flows from it. This protects constitutional rights by discouraging unlawful police conduct and preserving the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, the main consequence is that illegally obtained evidence and derivative evidence are generally inadmissible in court. There are exceptions—if the link to the illegality is sufficiently attenuated, or if an independent source or inevitable discovery applies—but those are not the default. The other options miss the general rule: corroboration doesn’t cure taint, derivative evidence isn’t automatically admissible, and police knowledge of illegality isn’t the test for admissibility.