What is the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine?

• A. Evidence obtained illegally is generally inadmissible in court, along with evidence derived from it.
• B. All evidence is admissible regardless of how obtained.
• C. Only physical evidence is excluded.
• D. The doctrine applies only to confessions.

Answer: (B)

The idea behind this principle is that illegal police conduct taints the evidence that follows. When evidence is obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights, not only is that specific piece of evidence typically excluded, but so is any other evidence derived from it. The goal is to deter unlawful actions by ensuring that wrongdoing doesn’t pay off in court.

This is not limited to a single type of evidence or to confessions. It applies to all evidence obtained through the initial illegality, and then to anything that flows from that tainted start. There are carve-outs in practice—such as when an independent lawful source, inevitable discovery, or a sufficient break in the causal chain (attenuation) allows derivative evidence to be admitted—but the default rule remains exclusion of both the tainted evidence and its fruits.