Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Advice from your New Jersey Criminal Lawyer

“Fruit of the poisonous tree” is, if nothing else, one of the coolest-named legal principles. But beyond its vivid name, it is also the fundamental protection you have against overreaching police officers violating your civil rights. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that if the police violate your constitutional rights while collecting evidence, the evidence cannot be admitted in court. In fact, not only can that evidence not be admitted, but any evidence that exists as a direct result of that evidence cannot be admitted. For instance, if the police uncovered a pile of dead bodies in the park as a result of finding a note that says, “This is where the bodies are buried!” while illegally searching a New Jersey murderer’s house, that evidence cannot be admitted.
This might seem like a silly principle—after all, it is clearly evidence, however it was collected. However, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine prevents the police from obtaining evidence through illegal arrests, coercive interrogations or unreasonable searches. If the police used improper after-arrest legal procedures, they might be censured, but the defendant would be convicted, and it would work out in the police’s benefit in the long run. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine guarantees that the police do not benefit from violating your constitutional rights, and therefore are less likely to do it.
There are four main exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:

1. The “independent source” principle holds that the evidence can be used if it came from a source independent of the illegal search. For instance, if the friend who helped the serial killer bury the body confessed the location of the bodies to the police.
2. The “discovery was inevitable” principle says that the evidence can be used if the police would have found it even if they didn’t perform any illegal act. For instance, if the bodies in the park are piled in plain sight and so obvious that a blind two-year-old could not miss them, the evidence would be admissible.
3. The “intervening act of free will” principle provides that if the defendant does something of his free will before the evidence is found, then the evidence can be admitted. For instance, if the serial killer finds the police searching his house and gives them permission to investigate.
4. Finally, the “good faith” principle holds that if the police had a reasonable, good-faith belief that their acts were legal, then the evidence will be allowed. For instance, if the police thought the warrant was legal when it really was not, the evidence found during the search may be admissible.
If you have been accused of a crime, a New Jersey criminal attorney can help you achieve the best possible outcome for your case. A New Jersey criminal lawyer is trained in all areas of criminal defense and will relentlessly ensure that your civil rights are protected. With the help of a New Jersey criminal attorney, you can make sure that any evidence in your case was collected in accordance with the law.