- Tags:
- Show more
- Pages:
- 1
- Words:
- 550
Student InstructorCourse Date Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine This rule is mandated to protect or/and prevent illegal searches. This principle works closely with the exclusionary rule that gives exceptions in the application of force or illegal means to acquire evidence from the crime doer. Primarily, the law intends to hamper police officer from using excessive and illicit mechanisms in the acquisition of evidence. The law enacted due to shady and detrimental searches that were conducted by the law enforcement in America to the criminal suspects. Nevertheless, the supreme court of the United States took a different direction in 1914. The case of Weeks Vs. The United States overturned the path of decision making whereby the exclusionary rule was introduced. A warrantless home search at Fremont Weeks residence obtained evidence that was applied in convicting him of unlawful gambling. As soon as the case wended its path to the high court, justice ruled that the evidence acquired in such method were inconsistent with the court demands. Thus, the judge overturned the conviction of the man, and this became the introduction of the exclusionary rule. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was after that successor of the exclusionary rule. The metaphor considers the “fruit” as being the tainted evidence while police misconduct and illegal searches are the poisonous tree. According to court, tainted evidence obtained through unlawful law enforcement searches is inadmissible. For instance, if a driver is stopped by the traffic police because of over speeding and no alcohol or drugs impairment, the officer cannot use a pound of marijuana found in the trunk of your
Leave feedback