The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine states that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation is not admissible in a court of law and must be excluded from trial. The doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is based on the rule that evidence obtained through illegal search or illegal interrogation taints not only evidence obtained but also facts discovered by the process. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tress is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary evidence. The doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. There must first be a primary evidence which is determined to have been illegally obtained then secondary evidence is obtained because of the primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any secondary evidence discovered or obtained because of it may not also be used. Although, this doctrine expressly states that such evidence cannot be admitted as evidence against a defendant, there are some exceptions to this doctrine. They are:1 1. Under the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery- Evidence is admissible even if obtained through an unlawful arrest, search, interrogation, or violation of an exclusionary law, if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence 2. Independent Source Doctrine - evidence is admissible if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate or independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act of the law enforcers. 3. Attentuation Doctrine - evidence maybe suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. Or, that the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated i.e too thin, weak, decreased or fragile. This takes into consideration the following factors: a). The time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consented search b). The presence of intervening factors or events c). The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
1Admissibility of Evidence. http://www.batasnatin.com. Accessed 18 May, 2016.