CDs where secondary evidence (confessions, physical evidence, witnesses) flows from a primary Fourth Amendment violation.

Motion to Suppress, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (Derivative Evidence)

Fourth Amendment suppression motion for evidence derived from an unlawful search or seizure. Wong Sun v. United States doctrine.

Trace the causal chain from the constitutional violation to each piece of derivative evidence and move to suppress the entire tree, not just the primary fruit.

“whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint”
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963) (Brennan, J.) — the governing test for derivative-evidence taint and the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine(opens in new tab)

Order, $97 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that a cold WESTLAW search does not.

01.
Not boilerplate: the Wong Sun v. United States authority is source-linked to the opinion, so you verify it is still good law before you file. Wong Sun requires tracing the but-for causal chain from the primary illegality to each item of derivative evidence.
02.
Three exceptions the government will invoke: independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation (Hudson v. Michigan).
03.
Cross-exam targets the temporal and causal link between the unlawful act and the derivative evidence discovery.

Authorities inside · source-checkable

The controlling authority this template is built on.

Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.

5Controlling authorities cited

5Verbatim opinion quotes

5Checkable source URLs

1Independent source host

Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint”
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963) (Brennan, J.) — the governing test for derivative-evidence taint and the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine · 371 U.S. at 488Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession”
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 (1975) (Blackmun, J.) — first of three Brown attenuation factors: close temporal proximity between unlawful arrest and incriminating evidence weighs in favor of suppression · 422 U.S. at 603–604Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence”
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (Scalia, J.) — independent source doctrine: evidence independently discovered through untainted investigation is admissible; warrant must not have been prompted by the illegal entry · 487 U.S. at 542Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means”
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984) (Burger, C.J.) — inevitable discovery doctrine: government bears the preponderance burden; speculation is insufficient · 467 U.S. at 444Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a 'but-for' cause of obtaining evidence”
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 (2006) (Scalia, J.) — attenuation: suppression not required where the interest protected by the violated constitutional guarantee would not be served by exclusion · 547 U.S. at 592Verify the source

Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

Order intake.

Fruit-of-the-Tree Motion, Case details

Delivery email *

Motion template PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Case identifier *

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier, BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Jurisdiction *

Court the matter is pending in. Stamps the brief cover and informs which circuit-level Fourth Amendment doctrine to flag in the motion language.

Firm name (optional)

Billing entity, rendered on the brief cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of brief generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details, submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the template contain?

Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), scope of motion (constitutional / statutory ground and the doctrine the court must apply), lead controlling authority (verbatim finding + source URL), 2-4 supporting authorities with source URLs, pre-drafted motion language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework (anticipates the government's expected response), 8-12 cross-examination questions for the testifying officer, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a research artifact modeled on controlling Fourth Amendment doctrine for this motion type. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the circuit's specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every template carries a source URL. Lead authorities are United States Supreme Court opinions. Supporting authorities are binding circuit precedent, all linked to CourtListener or official government sources. A citation without a working source URL does not ship.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.