What does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine state?

• A. Illegally obtained evidence can be used if the person is found guilty.
• B. It applies only to physical evidence.
• C. Evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible.
• D. Only direct evidence is admissible.

Answer: (C)

The core idea behind this doctrine is that when police obtain evidence through an unlawful action, not only is that initial evidence often excluded, but anything that flows from that illegality is also generally inadmissible. In practice, if the trail starts with a constitutional violation like an illegal search or interrogation, the government can’t use not only the tainted item but also evidence derived from it to prove guilt. This applies broadly beyond physical objects to include leads, investigations, and even testimony that springs from the initial illegality. There are exceptions—if the later evidence has an independent lawful source, or would have been discovered anyway, or the connection to the illegality is sufficiently attenuated—but the default rule is that derivative evidence is inadmissible. So the statement that evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible reflects this doctrine.