law procedures
During law procedures, the fruit of the poisonous trees doctrine is used to explain particular evidence that has been acquired illegally by the enforcement interventions. However, the theory states that; in criminal law, if a specific doctrine is found unconstitutional and illegal, that evidence or rather a piece of information cannot be introduced by the prosecuting attorney. Some evidence could even be out of false confession (Lipschultz, (2017)). However, the theory has it that the tree” false testimony” is poisoned in such a way that nothing beneficial can come from it. For instance, if a police officer has accused a suspect of stealing a vehicle, the suspect cannot be sued if the police officer doesn’t have enough evidence to prove the act — the case of United States vs. Silverthorne Lumber Co. was the first case where the theory of the fruit of poisonous tree doctrine was first used. The case had it that the US Marshalls and the Department of Justice went to the company where they seized their books, paper, and essential documents. According to the case, all the books and the employees were taken to the office of the prosecutor of the United States. However, the company wrote to the district court requesting the return of what had been considered illegitimately. The District Attorney opposed the application of the plaintiff, claiming that the evidence obtained was already before the grand jury.
However, the information gathered could be right, but the law has it that they could have used a legitimate way to get the data to protect the rights and privileges of the business. The company had the right to sue the government for such an act; hence the government could be charged and fined heavily for compensation of the company. Officers could be violating the fourth amendment of law if they broke into a particular home without the owner’s concept. This act is considered unconstitutional since it did not follow the rules and regulations of the law (Gray, Cooper, & McAloon, (2012)).
Moreover, there are various exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. They include; attenuated taint, inevitable discovery, and a sovereign source. The case of Nix V Williams is an excellent example of the exception of inevitable development. According to the case, the pieces of evidence found discovered of recovered could have been accepted by the law if they ware obtained in a proper way following the constitutional procedures. An instance of the case of Murray V of the United States is an example of the exception of independent sources. The lawsuit states that if the evidence and correct information has been given to law enforcement by an independent source, then it can be used to prove the suspect guilty. Finally, the case of Brown V. Illinois is a clear example of the exception of attenuated taint. The lawsuit states that the fruit of an illegal arrest is admissible since the granting of the Miranda warnings suitably attenuated the taint of the particular arrest (Brown, (2013)). Nevertheless, the law enforcement team should be clear with the law and its application before conducting an unlawful seizure or search and before making an illegal arrest. Besides, they should give the suspects an appropriate time to prepare mentally and psychologically instead of conducting criminal ambush without notice.