Police Officer Rico knew Martha was in the house at the address 4 Privet Drive. He knocked on the door and when Martha answered, he grabbed her, handcuffed her, and arrested her. As Martha was yelling at the officer, her husband Brandon came downstairs to argue. Officer Rico transported Martha to the police car and took Martha's phone from her as evidence. As he was going through Martha's phone, he found text messages from Martha to Brandon saying "Why did you kill your cousin BRyan with the hammer and hide it in the basement?" Officer Rico then arrested Brandon as well and went downstairs to the basement where he found a hammer with blood. The crime scene investigators later found Brandon's fingerprints.

Question

Evidence #1: Martha's phone

Evidence #2: The bloody hammer with Brandon's fingerprints.

This was an illegal arrest. According to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which of the following statements is true?

a
The arrest was legal and both forms of evidence are admissible in court.
b
Brandon’s hammer is excluded from the evidence because it was illegally found solely because of Martha’s illegally obtained phone as evidence
c
Both forms of evidence are acceptable even though the arrest was illegal.
d
Martha’s phone is excluded from evidence but the bloody hammer is not excluded from the evidence.

Answer 1

The correct answer is:

b. Brandon’s hammer is excluded from the evidence because it was illegally found solely because of Martha’s illegally obtained phone as evidence.

This is based on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which states that evidence obtained illegally (or as a result of illegal actions) cannot be used in court. Since Martha's phone was seized illegally, any evidence derived from it, including the discovery of the hammer and the subsequent finding of Brandon's fingerprints on it, would be inadmissible in court.