The fourth amendment and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

The situation that obscure put one across and law Officer Jones in plead X is a good case consume in understanding the concepts involved in the Fourth Amendment, concomitantly the doctrine of suppression of present.In the digest of the case, one will see that the only crime that Don has ordainted is driving with an expired license. And for this case, read X has every right to punish him accordingly with a fine of $100 and 10 years in the county jail. However, it is also important that the fact that the constitution of State X has a clause identical to Amendment IV of the U.S.Constitution, the other evidence obtained by law of nature Officer Jones in his go steady with Don cannot be used as evidence against Don in any court by reason of the harvest-tide of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. This particular doctrine opines that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in any court since this is in direct violation of the suspects Fourth Amendment.Although Don did commit a violation of law in State X by driving with an expired license, this particular violation does not necessarily warrant a bodily search or even a search of the vehicle even with the consent of the suspect. In the case of Florida vs. Bostick, we have learned that in the place setting of investigatory stops and detentions, Police may stop you for any reason, but are not authorize to any information other than your identification nor may they detain you without reasonable suspicion. (Flex Your Rights, 2006)In this particular case, the Police Officer did not have any justifiable or probable cause to frisk Don because the latter was not an immediate or indicateificant threat to the officer nor was there any sign that Don motorcarried any illegal weapon.Perhaps the only reasoning that can be applied by the Police Officer that might justify his stop and frisk action in this case is the flush or report given to him that a lone male driving in a car with an out-of-state license would be coming through town, traveling in an easterly direction, and carrying an illegal shipment of heroin. fairish the same, the Police Officer went over and beyond his call and duty by frisking Don and subjecting him to a warrant less search on account of a traffic violation.Furthermore, if there was any evidence that can be used against Don in this particular case is anything that is visible to eye of the Police Officer. The marijuana that was seized inside the car cannot be used by the State in convicting Don just now because it was obtained thru an illegal search. While it is given that Don consented to the search, the court should rule that the burden is on the prosecution to adjudicate the voluntariness of the consent and awareness of the right of choice. (Find Law, 2006)In this particular case, I am of the opinion that State X must rule in favor of Don and suppress all evidence obtained in the encounter between Don and Police Officer Jones since the search was done illegally and all evidence acquired as a result thereof should be considered inadmissible. Hence, the charges of illegal possession of marijuana and other dangerous drugs should be dropped. At best, Don should be convicted of driving with expired license a direct violation of State Xs law and should be netted the appropriate penalty.ReferencesFind Law, 2006 US Constitution, Fourth Amendment online for sale at http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/cited on June 11, 2006Flex Your Rights, 2006 Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Cases onlinecited on June 11, 2006