United States v. Conklin

Chief Judge GIERKE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Evidence derivative of an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation is commonly referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and is generally not admissible at trial.1 In this case we address the question of whether consent to a subsequent search is the antidote to the poison created by an earlier unlawful search.2 Although the subsequent consent may be a good treatment for the poison, it is not a panacea. Here, we hold that Appellant’s consent did not purge the taint of the earlier unlawful search.

We granted review of two issues…