Which doctrine says evidence derived from an illegal search or interrogation is inadmissible?

Which doctrine says evidence derived from an illegal search or interrogation is inadmissible?

• A. Exclusionary rule
• B. Inculpatory evidence
• C. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
• D. Exculpatory evidence

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that evidence obtained through an illegal police action taints anything that flows from that illegality. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree principle states that not only the improperly obtained item itself, but also any additional evidence discovered as a result of that initial illegality, is generally inadmissible. This extends the protection beyond the original illegal search or interrogation to deter ongoing unlawful conduct by law enforcement. There are recognized exceptions—such as when the taint is sufficiently attenuated, or when the evidence has an independent source or would have been discovered anyway—where tainted evidence might still be allowed. The other terms describe evidence’s usefulness to guilt or innocence rather than its admissibility due to illegal conduct.

The key idea is that evidence obtained through an illegal police action taints anything that flows from that illegality. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree principle states that not only the improperly obtained item itself, but also any additional evidence discovered as a result of that initial illegality, is generally inadmissible. This extends the protection beyond the original illegal search or interrogation to deter ongoing unlawful conduct by law enforcement. There are recognized exceptions—such as when the taint is sufficiently attenuated, or when the evidence has an independent source or would have been discovered anyway—where tainted evidence might still be allowed. The other terms describe evidence’s usefulness to guilt or innocence rather than its admissibility due to illegal conduct.