What is meant by the 'fruits of the poisonous tree' doctrine?

The 'fruits of the poisonous tree' doctrine holds that any evidence obtained through an unconstitutional act, such as an illegal search or seizure, is tainted and cannot be used in court. This legal principle is rooted in the idea that if the initial evidence is obtained through a violation of a person's rights, any subsequent evidence that is derived from that initial evidence is also considered inadmissible. The rationale behind this doctrine is to deter law enforcement from engaging in unlawful practices and to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. By excluding such evidence, the courts aim to prevent the exploitation of unconstitutional actions by the authorities, thereby protecting individual rights and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

Other options do not accurately capture the essence of this doctrine. For example, evidence obtained from a legal search warrant is valid and can be used in court, while evidence that is only partially relevant does not relate to the doctrine's concern over constitutional violations. Additionally, evidence obtained through a confession can be admissible depending on the circumstances surrounding the confession and does not automatically fall under the 'fruits of the poisonous tree' doctrine unless it has been derived from an unconstitutional action.