Identify the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and its impact on law enforcement

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established in Wong Sun v. United States, in which the Court explained that police misconduct does not require the entire case to be dismissed, but only the tainted evidence, or "fruit," resulting from that misconduct. The most common fruits are derived from an interrogation that has been conducted improperly, during which the suspect discloses information about evidence relating to the offense. The Court explained in Michigan v. Tucker, however, that when a suspect's Miranda rights are violated, this does not automatically result in the exclusion of the fruits from that confession. The case of New York v. Quarles supported this decision, creating a public safety exception to the exclusionary rule. In Quarles, a woman approached two officers and told them that an individual with a gun had just raped her. She also pointed out the supermarket into which her assailant had fled. Upon entering the store and finding the alleged perpetrator, they frisked him and found only an empty holster. Out of concern for public safety, the officer asked where the gun was. The suspect told him, and that statement was later used against the suspect in court. Because the officers had not yet read him his Miranda rights, the trial court excluded the statement under the exclusionary rule and the gun as a "fruit of the poisonous tree." However, the Supreme Court allowed both the statement and the gun to be entered as evidence, explaining that public safety takes precedence over individual rights when there is an imminent danger to life or limb.