I was arrested recently and received a DUI. The question arises when the arresting officer stopped me for having my high beams on when my high beams were never on before, during, or after the arrest. Does this mean the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine comes in to effect? I understand all the reasons to why inadmissible evidence can still be used, but none of the three reasons are applicable in this case in my opinion. Am I wrong to think this?
1 Answer from Attorneys
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies when police have illegally seized evidence. If a search is illegal, then anything found during the search can be suppressed. Here, the officer is stating as his probable cause to detain you his assertion that your high beams were on. You may not be able to use the "fruit" doctrine here, but you can still attack his observations: Were the high beams broken? Do you have witnesses to state the high beams were off? Feel free to contact me if you want to look into this further.
Sean Santoro/Licensed in MO and KS
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
