[6] For example, suppose a police officer obtained a key to a train station locker in the process of conducting a search of a home that was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment.
(United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))[citation needed] The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.
[citation needed] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if: The American doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree has generally been rejected by the courts and legislators in Australia.
There are other considerations as to the admissibility of the evidence, such as whether it was extracted under duress or other violation of human rights including privacy in modern times, or "if its prejudicial effect on the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value".
[10] In the 2019 Rafale deal controversy, the Attorney General K. K. Venugopal argued in front of a three-member bench of the court, which included the sitting Chief Justice, that official, classified documents stolen from the government – which happened to be integral to the case in question – should not be taken cognisance of by the court, as they were classified, and the stealth and subsequent leakage to a newspaper was a crime under the Official Secrets Act.
However, considerations of protection against self-incrimination – a right guaranteed by the Constitution – are taken into account and evidence obtained under duress will be grounds to reject its validity, but not the legality of the source alone.