Court Opinion

ID: 9458445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:52:02.572687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:45.571010
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
In my opinion the challenge to the search and seizure in this case is purely fanciful — if, indeed, not absurd. Consent to the search of Preston’s person and automobile was willingly given. Moreover, nothing was seized. In these circumstances, there was no illegal act and, therefore, no basis for application of the poisonous tree doctrine.
But, even assuming an illegal search there is no rational justification for the poisonous tree doctrine in this case. This is so simply because, in my judgment, it was not an unwarranted “exploitation” for the police to routinely search their own automobile after the defendant had occupied it. To accept the defendant’s rationalization of the poisonous tree doctrine would push it beyond the limits of credibility.
The court’s instructions to the jury are free from reversible error.