Which doctrine excludes evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure, often referred to as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'?

• A. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
• B. Exclusionary Rule
• C. Good Faith Exception
• D. Independent Source Doctrine

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is how courts handle evidence that comes from an illegal search and seizure, and how that illegality can taint additional discoveries. The doctrine named Fruit of the Poisonous Tree says that not only is the initial illegally obtained evidence excluded, but so are other things later discovered as a direct result of that illegality. In other words, once the police went astray, the chain of evidence is tainted unless an exception applies.

This is a specific extension of the broader Exclusionary Rule, which prohibits unlawfully obtained evidence. The Good Faith Exception, Independent Source Doctrine, and other carve-outs describe situations where tainted evidence might still be admitted, but they don’t capture the general principle that derivative evidence is also barred. The phrase in the question points to the doctrine’s famous label, which is why that choice is the best fit.