Which circumstance could break the causal link required to apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure is generally inadmissible in court, as it is considered tainted by the initial wrongdoing. However, this doctrine allows for certain exceptions that can break the causal link between the unlawful conduct and the evidence obtained.

The correct circumstance that can break this link is related to attenuation from intervening circumstances. This concept refers to situations where sufficient independent events occur after the illegal activity but before the evidence is collected, thereby becoming disconnected from the initial illegality. If the connection between the unlawful act and the obtained evidence becomes too tenuous—due to a significant intervening event—then the evidence may be deemed admissible. For example, if police conduct an illegal arrest but an independent source, like a tip from a reliable informant, leads them to discover the same evidence, the causal link may be broken, allowing the evidence to be used in court.

In contrast, subsequent police misconduct would not serve to break the causal link, as it would only compound the initial illegality. The defendant's pre-trial behavior typically does not impact the legality of how evidence was obtained, nor do mandatory reporter obligations directly address the admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful means. Therefore, the