Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (105)

The exclusionary rule clearly applies to evidence that is the direct result of a violation of Δ's rights (evidence seized from Δ's premises during an illegal search). But the exclusionary rule also applies to some derivative evidence, that is, evidence that is only indirectly obtained by a violation of Δ's rights. In general, if police wrongdoing leads in a relatively short, unbroken, chain to evidence, that evidence will be barred by the exclusionary rule, even though the evidence was not the direct and immediate fruit of the illegality. The concept is frequently referred to as the poisonous tree doctrine, once the original evidence is shown to have been unlawfully obtained; all evidence stemming from it is equally unusable.
Example: Agents, acting without probable cause, break into Toy's apartment and handcuff him. Toy makes statements accusing Yee of selling narcotics. The agents go to Yee, from whom they seize heroin. The drugs seized from Yee are "fruits of the poisonous tree", since they were seized as the direct result of that gents illegal entry into Toy's apartment. Therefor, the drugs from Yee cannot be introduced against Toy, under the exclusionary rule.
If the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police, there is no rational basis keep that evidence from the jury in order to ensure the fairness of the trial proceedings. Inevitable Discovery.
Wong Sun voluntarily went to the police department and voluntarily gave statements. Too attenuated from the poisonous tree to not be evidence.