The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using any evidence that is a violation of the Constitution. The rule applies to any evidence that comes from an unreasonable search or seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed this conviction, thereby creating what is known as the "exclusionary rule." In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.
This rule is designed to deter police misconduct; the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from introduction at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in contravention of a constitutional provision. The rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the propriety of the trial court's decision denying the motion to suppress on appeal. If the defendant succeeds on appeal, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial of the defendant because the trial court's error did not go to the question of guilt or innocence.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine which is known, as the Derivative Evidence is a rule that makes evidence obtain from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. The evidence was probably tainted because it came from an illegal search and seizure. This doctrine protects evidence arrived from an illegal search that it can’t be used against the defendant. This doctrine first came from the landmark case, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
There can be exceptions of the rule of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine:
1. The evidence was partly discovered as a result of an independent and untainted source of evidence.
2. The evidence would inevitably been discovered despite the tainted source.
3. The chain of accusations...