Fruit of the poisonous doctrine

Student
InstructorCourse
Date
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
This rule is mandated to protect or/and prevent illegal searches. This principle works closely with the exclusionary rule that gives exceptions in the application of force or illegal means to acquire evidence from the crime doer. Primarily, the law intends to hamper police officer from using excessive and illicit mechanisms in the acquisition of evidence. The law enacted due to shady and detrimental searches that were conducted by the law enforcement in America to the criminal suspects.
Nevertheless, the supreme court of the United States took a different direction in 1914. The case of Weeks Vs. The United States overturned the path of decision making whereby the exclusionary rule was introduced. A warrantless home search at Fremont Weeks residence obtained evidence that was applied in convicting him of unlawful gambling. As soon as the case wended its path to the high court, justice ruled that the evidence acquired in such method were inconsistent with the court demands. Thus, the judge overturned the conviction of the man, and this became the introduction of the exclusionary rule.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was after that successor of the exclusionary rule. The metaphor considers the “fruit” as being the tainted evidence while police misconduct and illegal searches are the poisonous tree. According to court, tainted evidence obtained through unlawful law enforcement searches is inadmissible.

For instance, if a driver is stopped by the traffic police because of over speeding and no alcohol or drugs impairment, the officer cannot use a pound of marijuana found in the trunk of your car obtained forcefully to convict you in a court of law. A good criminal defense attorney can have such charges dismissed since the search was illegal.
Another perfect example is where a client is being interrogated by the police, but when the suspect seeks permission to access the lawyer, the cops denies and ignores the request. Instead, they continuously hold him, hostage, while questioning him. Afterwards, the suspects wind up confessing that he robbed a bank under duress from the interrogation. This kind of confession is tainted and illegal because the officers failed to suspend questions even after a request to meet attorney was made. The case of United States v. Crews followed the same suit after the court of appeal termed the identification testimony as a product of the violation of rights of the respondent according to the Fourth Amendment (Diana and Jennifer, 985).
However, there are four main exceptions to the rule of “fruit of poisonous tree doctrine.” First, the evidence must have been obtained at least in part, from another independent or untainted source. In this case, the other source is applied as the legal means of acquiring the evidence. Secondly, it is apparent that the evidence would be discovered even despite the tainted source. The evidence will inevitably be obtained. Thirdly, there is the existence of attenuation between the unlawful activity and the law enforcement discovery. Finally, it is the case where search warrant becomes intrinsically invalid. A perfect example of this exception is the execution of the warrant by the agents of the government in good faith.
Conclusion
The fruit of poisonous tree doctrine is essential in deterring police from using illegal means to obtain evidence to arraign suspects in a court of law. I deem proof obtained falsely as inadequate to charger a respondent in the court. Unquestionable and legal means should be used to convict a person and police ought not to use uncouth ways to arrest a suspect.
Work Cited
Diana, Jennifer. “Apples and Oranges and Olives-Oh My-Fellers, the Sixth Amendment, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.” Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2005): 985.