The fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine excludes evidence derived from what?

• A. Evidence obtained from an independent source
• B. Evidence obtained with a warrant
• C. Good faith exception
• D. Evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that when police obtain evidence through an illegal search or seizure, not only that evidence but also any additional evidence that flows from the illegality is typically excluded at trial. This is the “fruits” concept: anything obtained as a result of the initial illegality is tainted and must be kept out.

The best choice states that evidence derived as a direct result of an illegal search is excluded. It captures the derivative nature of the rule—the chain of causation from the unlawful action to further discoveries.

Why the other options don’t fit: evidence arising from an independent source isn’t barred by the fruits doctrine because it comes from a separate, lawful path; evidence obtained with a warrant isn’t the fruit of an illegal search if the warrant itself is valid; and the good faith exception is an exception to the exclusionary rule that allows in some cases even improperly obtained evidence, so it isn’t what the doctrine excludes.