The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was developed to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained based on illegally obtained primary evidence. Is this a good rule? Why?
What will be an ideal response?
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is a good rule. It discourages police officers
from ignoring a suspect's constitutional rights. If there was no fruit of the poisonous
tree doctrine, officers would not worry about the initial illegality, because they could
use the later results of that illegal behavior. Knowing that subsequent evidence may
be excluded encourages police to observe constitutional rights at the beginning.
You might also like to view...
In its decision in Farmer v. Brennan (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “deliberate indifference resides on a continuum between mere negligence . . . [and] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." This case dealt with which of the following?
a. prison rape b. excessive force c. thefts d. homicides
The psychological egoist believes that our actions are ______.
a. always motivated by our own interests b. usually motivated by our own interests c. seldom motivated by our own interests d. never motivated by our own interests
Early tongs served as self-help organizations
a. True b. False
Inmates who are ______________ have a higher risk of sexual victimization in prison
a. serving a sentence for sex-related crimes b. gang affiliated c. old d. physically large