Cited by

tors, often called the Warndahl factors: (1) “the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct”; (2) “intervening circumstances”; (3) “whether law enforcement would have obtained the evidence without the illegal conduct”; and (4) “the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and allegedly resulting evidence.” (listing four factors).

suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree: (1) “the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct”; 8 (2) “intervening circumstances”; (3) “whether law enforcement would have obtained the evidence without the illegal conduct”; and (4) “the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and allegedly resulting evidence.” (listing four Warndahl factors).

Rather, the relevant concern is “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 pri mary taint.” (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488).

(holding that Minnesota courts consider, among other factors, intervening circumstances and whether evidence would have been obtained in the absence of illegality in determining whether evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree”); Harris, d at 105 (“We recognize an exception to this gener

and notes the outrageousness of the officer’s conduct as a reason to exclude the illegally obtained evidence.

-76 (Minn.1989) (explaining that evidence obtained by the exploitation of illegal actions of the police should be suppressed under doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree).

Once it has been shown that a suspect successfully invoked his right to counsel, “courts may admit [the suspect’s] responses to further questioning only on finding that [the suspect] (a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right [the suspect] invoked.” Id.; Munson, d at 139

see also Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct.

In determining whether evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” the relevant concern is “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.” (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct.

Then, once it has been proved that a suspect successfully invoked his right to *139 counsel, “courts may admit responses to further questioning only on finding that [the accused] (a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right invoked.” Id.

the supreme court considered several factors in determining whether evidence should be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” including the purpose and flagrancy of the officer’s misconduct, the presence of intervening circumstances, the likelihood that the evidence would have been obtained in the abs

824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (requiring reversal of some constitutional errors only if they were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); (applying harmless error analysis after finding trial court improperly admitted the defendant’s statements made in violation of his right to counsel).

1880, 1884-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)

824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)