The idea is that the tree is the unconstitutionally seized evidence, and the fruit is the evidence obtained through it. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may affect multiple pieces of evidence.
For example, Officer Bill stops Megan without cause, searches her purse, and finds a note indicating that she is hiding stolen property in her closet. An exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies when law enforcement would have found the evidence anyway. Also, if an officer does not have a legitimate reason to stop and search someone, but a legitimate reason arises during the stop, evidence that they find may be admissible in some situations.
There is another exception for voluntary statements by defendants that are provided without Miranda warnings. While the statements cannot be admitted because of the Miranda violation, evidence obtained from the statements can be admitted.
Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. The Exclusionary Rule There are two main legal doctrines that can apply when a search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment. Criminal Law. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing. Restitution for Crime Victims. Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Case.
Classification of Criminal Offenses. Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Cases. Criminal Appeals. Motions for a New Trial in Criminal Cases.
Competency to Stand Trial for Criminal Defendants. Continuances in Criminal Cases. Judgments of Acquittal in Criminal Trials. Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants. Immigration Removal Proceedings and Criminal Law.
Miranda Rights for Criminal Suspects. Right to Record Police Officers. Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom would be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, if an officer stops a car and, when talking to the driver, happens to notice a weapon on the passenger seat, there's been no search under the Fourth Amendment. That's because, even if the driver somehow considered the passenger seat to be a private place, society isn't willing to extend privacy protections to that particular location.
In other words, there's no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the gun because it was in plain view. A good example of how this works comes from a U. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head. The Court held that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations.
Bond v. Private security personnel have at times outnumbered police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you might be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards who aren't acting on the government's behalf.
For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack, the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer.
The drug is admissible in evidence because the search was conducted by a private security guard acting on his own, rather than at the officer's direction. If it turns out the police conducted an illegal search, does that mean the criminal case is over?
Not necessarily, but consequences do exist. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of it cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution. This principle, established by the U. Supreme Court in , has come to be known as the exclusionary rule. To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred.
According to this deterrence argument, the police are less likely to conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant. There are, however, exceptions to the exclusionary rule—for one, see Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception.
Not only is evidence that's the product of an illegal search generally inadmissible in court, but so too is additional evidence derived from the initial evidence. This principle is colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seized in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence.
Both tree and fruit are typically inadmissible at trial. For more, see Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. Common exceptions to the warrant requirement include: Consent. Police may conduct a search without a search warrant if they obtain consent. Consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area or property to be searched.
Plain View. An officer may seize evidence without a warrant if an officer is on the premises lawfully and the evidence is found in plain view. Search incident to arrest. While conducting a lawful arrest, an officer may search an individual's person and their immediate surroundings for weapons or other items that may harm the officer.
If a person is arrested in or near a vehicle, the officer has the right to search the passenger compartment of that vehicle. Exigent Circumstances. Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant. Automobile Exception. An officer may search a vehicle if they have a reasonable belief that contraband is contained inside the vehicle. Hot Pursuit.
Police may enter a private dwelling if they are in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing criminal. Once inside a dwelling, police may search the entire area without first obtaining a search warrant.
Criminal Law. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing.
0コメント