fect on the federal level of government thus the legal systems of the individual states around the country were not required to following this ruling. However, some states did recognize what was then known as the “Weeks Rule” and this paved the adoption of the rule under the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution (Stewart, Potter (1983).
In 1921, the Supreme Court decided the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co v United States (251 US 385 ([1920]). The main issue presented in this case was whether or not derivatives of evidence obtained illegally can be admissible in court. In this case, the Court ruled that permitting the admission in court of derivatives of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is illegal following the “Weeks Rule.” This ruling is later on known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine which is an extension of the exclusionary rule for evidences (Long, Carolyn (2006).
At the outset, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine was not held as binding on the States. The states only acknowledge the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine some 40 years later when the landmark decision of Mapp v Ohio (367 US 643 [1961]) came out. According to the decision of Mapp v Ohio, the exclusionary rule is binding upon the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process thereby effectively prevents the presentation of tainted evidence that may deny the defendant in a criminal case of the right to due process.
“the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense… a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized…”