An exception to this "tainted fruit" doctrine has been established for the case where the connection between the illegal seizure and the subsequent discovery of the challenged evidence has "become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint," Nardone v.
#Robert schwartz third point trial
The rule bars the introduction at trial not only of evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment, but also of evidence obtained as an indirect result of the illegal seizure the fruit of the poisoned tree. The purpose of the rule is to safeguard fourth amendment rights. The exclusionary rule was established in Weeks v. Neither defendant's motions to suppress nor the government's responses to these motions mentioned the testimony of the witness Massa. The court then assumed, Arguendo, that the arrest Had been lawful, and went on to hold that the seizure of the file folder was nevertheless illegal since the folder was not seized in a search incident to arrest as permitted under Chimel v. It ruled, first, that the affidavit in support of the warrant for Scios's arrest had failed to establish probable cause to believe that Scios had committed a crime consequently, the challenged evidence was suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest.
Its order was based on two alternative grounds. 10, 1974, the court granted these suppression motions. He moved, in addition, to suppress all oral statements made by him at the time of arrest, and any evidence derived therefrom. In October, 1974, defendant Scios moved the district court to suppress as evidence the file folder and its contents, as well as all evidence derived therefrom.
0 kommentar(er)
