poisonous tree doctrine in Indiana

2024See Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 266 (Ind. 2013) (explaining that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to “evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful seizure” and extends to “derivative evidence” that “has been come at by exploitation of that illegality”), (citations omitted).

2019Cf. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 267 (Ind. 2013) (“Generally speaking, evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful seizure must be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

2014See Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind. Ct.App.2004) (noting that “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine bars evidence directly obtained and evidence derivatively gained as a result of information learned or leads obtained during an unlawful search of seizure); Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (applying fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to Article 1, Section 11 claim). 6 Conclusion Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we conclude that the conduct of the police detectives was not reasonable.

2007See Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (the exclusionary rule, also known as the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, bars from trial physical, tangible materials obtained during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion)).

2015See Hanna v. State, 726 N.E.2d 384, 389 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is one facet of the exclusionary rule of evidence which bars the admissibility in a criminal proceeding of evidence obtained in the course of unlawful searches and seizures.”).

2014“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is one facet of the exclusionary rule of evidence which bars the admissibility in a criminal proceeding of evidence obtained in the course of unlawful searches and seizures.” Hanna v. State, 726 N.E.2d 384, 389 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See Gyamfi v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1131 , 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [24] Under federal jurisprudence, if the defendant proves the evidence was derived from an unconstitutional search, then the State can claim that the evidence may nonetheless be admitted based on an exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

2015See Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1136 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ... bars the admissibility in a criminal proceeding of evidence obtained in the course of unlawful searches and seizures.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2004Jackson v. State, 669 N.E.2d 744, 749 (Ind. Ct.App.1996).

2001Jackson v. *957 State, 669 N.E.2d 744, 749 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

2014Detective Sizemore testified unequivocally that the exposure of the contraband in Clark’s pocket was not a result of Detective Fleece’s pat-down, and it is well-settled that “the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application when the derivative evidence has an ‘independent sourcef.]’ ” Id. (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)).

2014Detective Sizemore testified unequivocally that the exposure of the contraband in Clark’s pocket was not a result of Detective Fleece’s pat-down, and it is well-settled that “the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application when the derivative evidence has an ‘independent sourcef.]’ ” Id. (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)).

2011“When applied, the [fruit of the poisonous tree] doctrine operates to bar not only evidence directly obtained, but also evidence derivatively gained as a result of information learned or leads obtained during an unlawful search or seizure.” Adams v. State, 762 N.E.2d 737, 745 (Ind.2002).

2010Adams v. State, 762 N.E.2d 737, 745 (Ind.2002).

2014“If the . . . detention exceeds its proper investigative scope, the seized items must be excluded under the ‘fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine.’” Id.

2008"If the . . . detention exceeds its proper investigative scope, the seized items must be excluded under the `fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine.'" United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir. 1999).

2025The Court observed, “As we see it, by examining the causal chain between the illegality and the discovered evidence or looking at the totality of the circumstances, attenuation is the natural, reasonable limit to the exclusionary rule’s fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. at 317 (citing in part Commonwealth v. Damiano, 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510, 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, “the attenuation rule is ‘not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits’”)

2025The Court observed, “As we see it, by examining the causal chain between the illegality and the discovered evidence or looking at the totality of the circumstances, attenuation is the natural, reasonable limit to the exclusionary rule’s fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. at 317 (citing in part Commonwealth v. Damiano, 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510, 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, “the attenuation rule is ‘not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits’”)

2000See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine).

2000See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine).

1997See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (rejecting application of “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” to Fifth Amendment context and holding that confession given after pre-Miranda incriminating statement is admissible if voluntarily made under the surrounding circumstances). 10 .

1997See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (rejecting application of “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” to Fifth Amendment context and holding that confession given after pre-Miranda incriminating statement is admissible if voluntarily made under the surrounding circumstances). 10 .

2019“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer making the search, based on reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” Robles v. State, 510 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. 1987).

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See State v. Eserjose , 171 Wash.2d 907 , 259 P.3d 172 , 179-80 (2011) (reasoning "the attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine" since the two "stem from the same source"); Commonwealth v. Damiano , 444 Mass. 444 , 828 N.E.2d 510 , 518 (2005) (citation omitted) (explaining that since the attenuation doctrine asks whether the police exploited the illegality to gain evidence, "the attenuation rule is 'not an exception to the exclusionary rule but a test of its limits' "); Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487 -88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 (announcing the first iteratio

2018See Herald v. State , 511 N.E.2d 5 , 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (quotations omitted), trans. denied . [25] Indiana's constitutional jurisprudence diverges from federal jurisprudence as to exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

2017In determining whether the connection has become attenuated, courts generally consider “(1) the time elapsed between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir. 1997)), trans. denied.

2016This provision must receive a liberal construction in its application to guarantee the people against unreasonable search and seizure.” Perez v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1242, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

2016This provision must receive a liberal construction in its application to guarantee the people against unreasonable search and seizure.” Perez v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1242, 1251 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

2016Id. [18] A person has been “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when an officer has, by means of physical force or a show of authority, restrained the liberty of a citizen, or when, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have bélieved he was not free to leave a police officer’s questioning, D.Y. v. State, 28 N.E.3d 249, 255 (Ind.Ct.App.2015).