What does the term "fruit of the poisonous tree" refer to in legal context?

The term "fruit of the poisonous tree" specifically refers to evidence that is derived from an illegal search or procedural violation. This legal doctrine asserts that if the initial evidence is obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights, then any subsequent evidence that stems from that initial violation is also inadmissible in court. The rationale behind this principle is to deter law enforcement from conducting illegal searches and to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

For instance, if law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant and discovers incriminating evidence, that evidence cannot be used against the defendant in court because it is considered tainted. Likewise, any additional evidence or confessions that arise as a direct result of that illegally obtained evidence would also be considered "fruits" of the unlawful action and therefore inadmissible.

In contrast, evidence obtained through a lawful search warrant or evidence that has been modified or tampered with does not fall under this doctrine, as they do not involve constitutional violations in their procurement. Confessions made under duress may raise concerns about voluntariness and admissibility, but they do not directly pertain to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine as it relates to the original evidence obtained illegally.