It does not require actual entry upon premises and search for and seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
— Justice Joseph P. Bradley
The Exclusionary Rule is available to a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth
Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. One important corollary to the Exclusionary
Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being inadmissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371
U.S. 471.
Between 1791 and 1914, the constitutionally guaranteed right of all citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures remained virtually unenforced by American courts. This Part argues that an exclusionary rule for new law is essential to deterring constitutional violations.
The exclusionary rule for changing law provides the litigation incentives needed to help courts weigh constitutional interests accurately and thus adopt accurate Fourth Amendment rules. The availability of a suppression remedy gives criminal defendants an incentive to argue for changes in the law by allowing them to benefit if they successfully persuade courts to overturn adverse precedents. Recognizing a good faith exception for changing law would mean that defendants could not benefit from arguments to change that law. Defendants would no longer make such arguments, substantially impairing the adversarial process that the Supreme Court needs to analyze constitutional interests accurately. Recognizing a good faith exception for overturned law would introduce a systemic bias into Fourth Amendment litigation: it would encourage the prosecution to argue for changes in the law in its favor but discourage the same argument from the defense. The result would be a systematic skewing of constitutional arguments in the government’s favor which would ensure the retention of erroneous precedents that allow practices that should be recognized as unconstitutional. The exclusionary rule for changing law is therefore necessary because it deters constitutional violations by appellate courts: it provides the litigation incentives needed to ensure accurate Fourth Amendment rulemaking. This
Part begins by introducing The exclusionary rule says that any evidence which is obtained by an illegal search, and in bad faith cannot be included as part of a subsequent criminal trial . The
"fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The term fruit of the poisonous tree was first used in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60
S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939). In Nardone, Frank C. Nardone appealed his convictions for smuggling and concealing alcohol and for conspiracy to do the same. In an earlier decision n, the High Court had ruled that an interception of Nardone's telephone conversations by government agents violated the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.A. § 605). The issue before the Court was
