There is a well established doctrine in US criminal law that is summed up in the expression “fruit of the poison tree,” which is a legal metaphor establishing the axiomatic concept that evidence obtained through illegal state action is not admissible in court. In other words, if the police break the law and, as a result of that illegal action, obtain evidence of criminal activity, such evidence is “tainted” and is not admissible in a subsequent criminal trial.
I do not invoke the exclusionary rule as a direct legal analogy to the current national discussion of torture because US Constitutional rights are not afforded to every person on the face of the earth and because this rule (as with all legal matters) has important exceptions; rather, I bring it up because it beautifully and succinctly summarizes the lengths to which we as a people will go to defend our freedoms and to support the rule of law. The underlying sentiment of the exclusionary rule is clear: in the United States the end does not justify the means, if the means involve violations of US law.
Read More
