Fourth Amendment -- Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Question 1

What is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (“FOPT”)?

Answer 1

Evidence seized that flows from a constitutional violation is tainted and should therefore be suppressed, not withstanding certain exceptions.

Question 2

What are the exceptions to the FOPT?

Answer 2

1. Attenuation;
2. Independent source; and
3. Inevitable discovery

Question 3

Can the ER be applied in state courts?

Answer 3

Pursuant to Mapp v. Ohio, where Os illegally entered D’s home because they thought she was a bombing suspect, held that the ER can be applied in state proceedings as well.

Question 4

When does the FOPT exception called attenuation apply?

Answer 4

Attenuation applies if the link between the constitutional violation and evidence is attenuated, therefore, the evidence is not tainted and is not excluded by the ER.

The factors for assessing whether the evidence is attenuated is:

1. The temporal proximity between unconstitutional conduct and discovery of evidence;
2. The presence of intervening circumstances.
   ——[e.g., warrant in Strieff]
   ——[e.g., the catch and release in Wong Sun]
3. The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.

Question 5

Can a catch and release trigger attenuation?

Answer 5

Yes in Wong Sung, the D was arrested charged and released, later the D was question against correctly and made statements. The second statements were not inadmissible b/c the connection between the first was too attenuated.

Question 6

Can a warrant serve as an intervening circumstance?

Answer 6

Yes, in Utah v. Strieff, there was an anonymous tip about drugs. Os unlawfully stopped Strieff and demanded ID, they then saw that D had a warrant.

Holding: Evidence was properly admitted at trial b/c warrant was an intervening circumstance that is attenuated illegal stop.

Question 7

If Os invalidly obtain evidence, but then later validly obtain evidence through an unrelated independent source can the later evidence come in?

Answer 7

Yes, you can illegally obtain evidence then get a valid warrant, and then legally obtain evidence using the warrant. The legally obtained evidence can come in because it was obtained through an independent source.

Question 8

Does the ER apply if the O can establish that they would have inevitably discovered evidence w/o violation of the 4 A?

Answer 8

In Nix, Os were searching for body. Os had D in custody who was suspected of murder. Os had ordered several search parties to find thebody. While in the copy car, the Os illegally interrogated the suspect to reveal the location of the body, which the suspect eventually did.

HOLDING: the location of the body is admissible, because the search parties would have inevitably discovered the location. The statements made by the D, however, are not admissible.