poisonous tree doctrine in Illinois

2022This provision is “the legislature’s express adoption of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” In re Marriage of Almquist, 299 Ill.

2020This provision is “the legislature’s express adoption of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” In re Marriage of Almquist, 299 Ill.

2009Harris, 495 U.S. at 19 , 110 S.Ct. at 1643 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 21 ; People v. McCauley, 163 Ill.2d 414, 448 , 206 Ill.Dec. 671 , 645 N.E.2d 923 (1994) ("[w]hen police conduct results in a violation of constitutional rights, evidence obtained as a result of that violation, and only evidence so obtained, is to be suppressed"); People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill.2d 522, 528 , 61 Ill.Dec. 515 , 434 N.E.2d 1112 (1982) ("[t]he basic assumption underlying the `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is that the challenged evidence is derived from some violation of a statutory or constitutional right" (emphasis in

2009Ed. 2d at 21 , 110 S. Ct. at 1643 ; People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414, 448 (1994) (“[w]hen police conduct results in a violation of constitutional rights, evidence obtained as a result of that violation, and only evidence so obtained, is to be suppressed”); People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill. 2d 522, 528 (1982) (“[t]he basic assumption underlying the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is that the challenged evidence is derived from some violation of a statutory or constitutional right” (emphasis in original)).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 23 The statute’s exclusionary rule applies to information derived from a process initiated by an unlawful act but does not extend to evidence obtained from an independent source.

1997"Both the direct and indirect products of unconstitutional police conduct must be suppressed under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” People v. Kluppelberg, 257 Ill.

1997"Both the direct and indirect products of unconstitutional police conduct must be suppressed under the `fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." People v. Kluppelberg, 257 Ill.App. 3d 516, 529, 628 N.E.2d 908, 918 (1993), citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 , 9 L.

2024See United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1113 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)). “[T]he fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only where the police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights, for example, by conducting an unconstitutional search, arrest or interrogation.

2024See United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1113 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)). “[T]he fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only where the police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights, for example, by conducting an unconstitutional - 20 - search, arrest or interrogation.

2024See United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1113 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)). “[T]he fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only where the police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights, for example, by conducting an unconstitutional search, arrest or interrogation.

2024See United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1113 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)). “[T]he fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only where the police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights, for example, by conducting an unconstitutional - 20 - search, arrest or interrogation.

2020“When the defendant has established a ‘primary illegality’ and shows its connection to what are alleged to be the fruits of the illegality, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to establish ‘that the challenged evidence was obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” People v. Satek, 78 Ill.

2020“When the defendant has established a ‘primary illegality’ and shows its connection to what are alleged to be the fruits of the illegality, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to establish ‘that the challenged evidence was obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” People v. Satek, 78 Ill.

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020People v. Seehausen, 193 Ill.

2020People v. Seehausen, 193 Ill.

2003See People v. Santana, 121 Ill.App.3d 265, 270 , 76 Ill.Dec. 740 , 459 N.E.2d 655, 659 (1984).

2003See People v. Santana, 121 Ill.

1997See People v. Ward, 199 A.D.2d 573 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1993) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine not applied to suppress evidence flowing from privileged communication between clergy and penitent); see also Walstad v. State, 818 P.2d 695 , 699 n.6 (Alaska App. 1991) (noting that there seems to be considerable doubt as to the extent to which the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply in cases involving violations of evidentiary privileges).

1997See People v. Ward, 199 A.D.2d 573 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1993) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine not applied to suppress evidence flowing from privileged communication between clergy and penitent); see also Walstad v. State, 818 P.2d 695 , 699 n.6 (Alaska App. 1991) (noting that there seems to be considerable doubt as to the extent to which the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply in cases involving violations of evidentiary privileges).

1997See People v. Ward, 199 A.D.2d 573 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1993) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine not applied to suppress evidence flowing from privileged communication between clergy and penitent); see also Walstad v. State, 818 P.2d 695 , 699 n. 6 (Alaska App.1991) (noting that there seems to be considerable doubt as to the extent to which the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply in cases involving violations of evidentiary privileges).

1997See People v. Ward, 199 A.D.2d 573 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1993) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine not applied to suppress evidence flowing from privileged communication between clergy and penitent); see also Walstad v. State, 818 P.2d 695 , 699 n.6 (Alaska App. 1991) (noting that there seems to be considerable doubt as to the extent to which the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply in cases involving violations of evidentiary privileges).

2020“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, an unlawful search taints not only the evidence obtained from the search, but also evidence derivative of the search.” Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). ¶ 19 Evidence should be suppressed where “the initial illegality ‘led directly to any of the evidence actually used against the defendant at trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Carsello, 578 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2020However, I do not believe that the independent source doctrine is applicable to this case. ¶ 50 Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the question is “ ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488 (quoting John M.

2021There is no basis to conclude that the Gervasi officers were any less motivated by the court reporters’ illegal eavesdropping, conducted at their request, than the Harris confidential informant was by her recording device. ¶ 40 Gervasi clearly stated that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply because the officers were actual participants in the conversations with the defendants. 89 Ill. 2d at 530 .

2009Ed. 2d at 21 , 110 S. Ct. at 1643 ; People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414, 448 (1994) (“[w]hen police conduct results in a violation of constitutional rights, evidence obtained as a result of that violation, and only evidence so obtained, is to be suppressed”); People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill. 2d 522, 528 (1982) (“[t]he basic assumption underlying the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is that the challenged evidence is derived from some violation of a statutory or constitutional right” (emphasis in original)).

2025“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, a fourth amendment violation is the poisonous tree, and any evidence obtained as a result of that violation is the fruit.” Id. (citing People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). ¶ 32 When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply the two-part standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-97 (1996).

2025“Under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, a fourth amendment violation is the poisonous tree, and any evidence obtained as a result of that violation is the fruit.” Id. (citing People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). ¶ 33 We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, under the two-part standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-97 , (1996).

2021See People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068, ¶ 45 (under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is suppressed if it was obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights). ¶ 48 We have already addressed these underlying arguments and determined that they lack merit.

2021See People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068, ¶ 45 (under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is suppressed if it was obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights). ¶ 48 We have already addressed these underlying arguments and determined that they lack merit.