poisonous tree doctrine in Alabama

2008Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). ... “ ‘... [Wjhile it is thus true that a consent to search which fails the vol-untariness test because of prior illegality may just as convincingly be said to be a fruit of the prior illegality, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also extends to invalidate consents which are voluntary.’ ” 568 So.2d at 424 .

2002The Court recast this holding in its more enduring form, the `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, in Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 . . . (1963).

2002"The roots of the doctrine requiring courts to suppress evidence as the tainted `fruit' of unlawful governmental conduct can be traced to Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 . . . (1920).

1973Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920).

2008The facts in the record are conflicting as to whether the key ring holding the key to *1060 the lockbox was obtained during a Terry v. Ohio, 892 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), patdown search of Bridgett or during the search of the bedroom for weapons.

2008The facts in the record are conflicting as to whether the key ring holding the key to *1060 the lockbox was obtained during a Terry v. Ohio, 892 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), patdown search of Bridgett or during the search of the bedroom for weapons.

1990(Emphasis in original.) See also United States v. Taheri, 648 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.1981) (even if a defendant voluntarily consents, the evidence must be suppressed if it was not sufficiently attenuated from the prior misconduct).

1988The court in Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d at 928 , stated: "In Elstad , the Court began by considering whether, and under what circumstances, the failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to a confession `taints,' under the `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, a subsequent confession.

1988Id. at [306], 105 S.Ct. at 1291 .

1987United States v. Bailey , supra. A court may admit evidence that is the fruit of illegal police conduct if: (1) The evidence would inevitably have been discovered in the course of investigation; (2) the connection between the challenged evidence and the illegal conduct is so attenuated that it dissipates the taint of the illegal action; or (3) the evidence was obtained from a source independent of the constitutional violation.

1973We have treated the missing search warrant at Town Creek as “no search warrant.” It is obvious that the evidence introduced at the trial was derivative only and was not discovered by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary “taint.” See generally, Annot. 43 A.L.R.3rd 840, and Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 , for a discussion of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and its application.

1973We have treated the missing search warrant at Town Creek as “no search warrant.” It is obvious that the evidence introduced at the trial was derivative only and was not discovered by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary “taint.” See generally, Annot. 43 A.L.R.3rd 840, and Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 , for a discussion of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and its application.