Like, if the state illegally finds proof you committed a crime, so they can’t use it, that doesn’t mean the feds get to. So let’s say the stuff in his backpack was already in there, and there is some plausible explanation for all the “smoking gun” evidence to not have been noticed till like 11 hours later…
No one can use what was in the backpack if they were led to it via illegal methods.
It’s just inadmissible and the prosecutors have to deal with losing it if they can’t show a parallel investigation had a reasonable chance of discovering it.
Tainted evidence is tainted evidence…
Like, if the state illegally finds proof you committed a crime, so they can’t use it, that doesn’t mean the feds get to. So let’s say the stuff in his backpack was already in there, and there is some plausible explanation for all the “smoking gun” evidence to not have been noticed till like 11 hours later…
No one can use what was in the backpack if they were led to it via illegal methods.
It’s just inadmissible and the prosecutors have to deal with losing it if they can’t show a parallel investigation had a reasonable chance of discovering it.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” is how I’ve always heard this one; don’t know if that’s the actual legal term or not.