What does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine address?

• A. It applies to exculpatory statements only.
• B. Physical evidence can never be excluded.
• C. Evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible.
• D. Only direct evidence derived from a search is inadmissible.

Answer: (C)

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends the exclusionary rule beyond the illegally obtained item itself to any evidence that is derived from that illegality. If police conduct violates the Fourth Amendment, not only is the initial evidence typically excluded, but anything discovered or secured because of that tainted evidence is generally inadmissible as well. This keeps incentives aligned so law enforcement doesn’t gain by engaging in unlawful searches or seizures.

So, the key point is that derivative evidence—things obtained as a consequence of the initial illegal action—usually cannot be used in court. There are exceptions (like independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, or good-faith reliance on a warrant), but the default rule targets the chain of results stemming from the unlawful conduct.

This explains why the correct choice describes evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence as generally inadmissible. The other options don’t fit: the doctrine isn’t limited to exculpatory statements, it covers more than just physical evidence, and it isn’t restricted to direct evidence from a search.