Changes

== Origins ==

== Origins ==

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule, which finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913 which interprets the Bill of Rights.  In Weeks v. United States, Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.  The "traditionally" leading case on the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is ''Silverthorne Lumber Co. v United States''.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule, which finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2–3, 1913 which interprets the Bill of Rights.  In Weeks v. United States, Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.  The "traditionally" leading case on the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is ''Silverthorne Lumber Co. v United States''.

== Criticisms ==

== Criticisms ==

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights.  However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a criminal go free "because the constable blundered." <ref> See People v. Defore , 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926), Cardozo J. </ref>  While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights.  However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a criminal go free "because the constable blundered." <ref>See People v. Defore , 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926), Cardozo J.</ref>  While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

== See also ==

== See also ==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Law]]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]