Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Introduction

The exclusionary rule dictates any evidence that violates the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible before the court of law. This provision allows the American justice system to prevent law enforcement officers from violating constitutional rights. According to the principle, the judges will deny any unconstitutional evidence from being used to prove a crime. It upholds the importance of suppression that allows courts to let the defendant have a fair hearing. As a result, if the judges deny admission of evidence the prosecution team calls for a case dismissal. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine strengthens this principle’s mandate to ensure that the court only receives permissible facts.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

            Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine dictates that prosecutors should only provide evidence acquired from a person with no criminal links. This situation prevents investigators from furnishing the court of law with evidence obtained from people with questionable background. According to Tarleton (2019), this code deters police officers from coercing a person of interest in criminal activity to provide evidence that can incriminate other people. As a consequence, the court must implement the Fourth Amendment and dismiss doubtful proof. For that reason, it dictates that the court should establish whether legal means were used by detectives to acquire the evidence before from entities without any connection with the initial illegality.

            The doctrine demands that a trial should only use facts with inevitable discovery as evidence. According to Tarleton (2019), this rule has an exception that allows the prosecution to use illegally obtained truths because they would still have been identified legally by the law. As a result, the judge can allow the court to use questionable evidence, despite it violating the defendant’s constitutional rights. Legal Information Institute (2019) explains that American courts demand that the attorney proves that the authorities were constitutionally pursuing channels that would have eventually resulted in the acquisition of the points during the illegal attainment of the evidence. This situation shows that...