“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”: The Exclusionary Rule in Florida

September 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

The “fruit of the poisonous” tree doctrine is a legal doctrine that excludes evidence obtained from illegal searches, seizures or interrogations from being used in court. It is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protections Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents – including law enforcement.

During an investigation, law enforcement will often discover evidence that can be used against a defendant during a criminal prosecution. However, under certain circumstances, such evidence is inadmissible in court, as it is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” 

This article will discuss the exclusionary rule in Florida, some exceptions to it, and how this can strengthen someone’s defense if accused of a crime.

The term “fruit of the poisonous tree” stems from Wong Sun, a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case. In Wong Sun, the court ruled that evidence directly or indirectly obtained through unconstitutional police conduct must generally be excluded from trial unless it is sufficiently attenuated from the original illegality. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)

Attenuation means the connection between illegal police conduct (like an unlawful search or arrest) and the evidence has weakened enough over time – or through other events – that the evidence is considered no longer “tainted” and can be used in court. 

Some examples of “fruit of the poisonous tree” subject to exclusion from use in court may include any of the following:

• Police illegally stop a car, then search it without consent or warrant
• Police illegally enter a home without a warrant, find evidence in plain view 
• Police illegally arrest a suspect and immediately get a confession without reading them their Miranda rights
• Police coerce a witness into testifying after an unlawful detention 
• Police unlawfully seize a phone and then use the contents (texts, GPS) to find other suspects and arrest them

But in Wong Sun, the defendant’s confession was allowed to be admitted in court because even though he was illegally arrested, he voluntarily returned to the police station days after he was initially questioned and confessed. The Court ruled that the connection between the confession and arrest were so attenuated (weakened) by the gap in time, that the confession was admissible in court.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Illinois, courts use a three-factor test to determine whether evidence should be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

These factors include: 

1. The temporal (time) proximity between the illegal police activity and the discovery of evidence (the shorter the gap, the more likely to be excluded)
2. Intervening circumstances, such as the suspect returning voluntarily or officers discovering an outstanding warrant for someone’s arrest
3. If police were acting in bad faith (“the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct”)

Moreover, evidence that is obtained through unconstitutional police action can also be admitted in court if it is found to be “inevitable discovery.” This doctrine is applicable when the evidence found via the illegal conduct would have been “inevitably discovered” in the course of a lawful and legitimate police investigation. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). 

If someone challenges the admission of evidence based on a theory of inevitable discovery, the State must prove the evidence would have been inevitably discovered by legal means by a preponderance of the evidence for it to be admissible. This means it must more likely than not be the case that the discovery was inevitable by lawful means.

A final exception to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule is the independent source exception. Under this exception, evidence may be admitted that is discovered and seized during a lawful search, even if that same evidence was initially discovered during a previous unlawful search.

For the independent source exception to apply, the State must show:

• Genuine independent motivation for the subsequent search 
• Legally sufficient and untainted affidavit (application for the search warrant)

The U.S. Supreme Court applied this in Murray v. U.S., a 1988 case. Federal agents surveilled Murray for drug trafficking, arrested him outside a warehouse containing drugs, then illegally entered the warehouse without a warrant – where they saw marijuana. The agents later applied for a warrant to search the warehouse without mentioning the illegal entry or including anything they had observed.

The Murray decision held that the marijuana was admissible in court if the decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by the illegal entry, and the judge’s decision to issue the warrant was not based on any information obtained via the illegal entry. Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988).

In sum, the exclusionary rule in Florida prevents “fruit of the poisonous tree” from being admitted in court. If law enforcement obtains evidence in violation of someone’s constitutional rights, this will generally result in that evidence being inadmissible in a court of law. But there are exceptions to this rule, making it important to find an experienced and aggressive attorney that can argue strongly for the suppression of illegally obtained evidence.

If someone believes evidence is being illegally used against them or a loved one in a case, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share