THE FRUITS OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH OR SEIZURE ARE TAINTED AND MAY NOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE
Evidence seized as the result of a search or seizure (or an arrest) which has exceeded permissible bounds is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and must be excluded. Wong Sun v. United States, (1973) 371 U.S. 471. Thus confessions, admissions and physical evidence are barred, Lockridge v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 166 (1970); as well as testimony as to the identity of stolen goods, People v. Dowdy, 50 Cal.App.3d 180 (1975); and tape recordings, People v. Coyle, 2 Cal.App.3d 60 (1969). See also Ruiz v. Craven, 425 F2d 235 (9th Cir 1970) (confession after confrontation with illegally seized heroin).
“fruit of the poisonous tree”
Also, tangible evidence obtained as a fruit of a Miranda violation is inadmissible and may be suppressed under Penal Code section 1538.5. People v. Abbott, 3 Cal.App.3d 966 (1970); U.S. v. Casell, 452 F2d 533 (7th Cir 1971); People v. Superior Court (Keithley), 13 Cal.3d 406 (1975). An admission or confession or other intangible fruit which is the result of an illegal arrest can be challenged under Penal Code section 1538.5. Wong Sun, supra; People v. DeVaughn, 18 Cal.3d 889 (1977).
Once it is shown that a statement was the fruit of a violation of the constitutional proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is the People’s burden to purge the evidence of its taint. A mere giving of the Miranda admonition is not enough. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975). Here, there is a substantial amount of taint upon the seized items. The taint was not purged from the evidence, and thus, it should all be suppressed.