Random Esquire

My apologies for the delay, here is the answer to your Tainted Fruit question:

Police suspect King Kong of stealing the radio antenna from the top of a skyscraper. They conduct an illegal search of Kong’s house, where they find a newspaper clipping about the theft of a shipment of bananas from the Havana Banana Company. They go away and investigate that crime and find evidence sufficient to arrest Kong, even though they’d had no reason to suspect him before the illegal search. At his trial, Kong claims the evidence used against him is “tainted fruit” of the illegal search and should be excluded. Is he correct?

Answer:   No.  When police discover evidence of an entirely unrelated crime as the independent result of their unlawful conduct, the new evidence will not be considered tainted as long as the police’s unlawful investigative intent did not “extend to the additional evidence.”  Here, the police has no idea of Kong’s involvement in the banana heist, and their unlawful intent in conducting the search did not extend to that crime.  Even though they may not have been led to Kong except for the unlawful search, the taint on the newspaper clipping will be considered purged, and it (and evidence derived from it) will be admissible.